touch of golden ice + lots of dex damage + undead = ?

[Hypersmurf]

Or magical.

Magical abilities are neither supernatural abilities nor spell-like abilities.

Hmm? Both Supernatural and Spell-Like abilities are magical.

What do you do when you paralyze your victim with a supernatural or spell-like ability? You immobilize them through magical means.

"Some monsters and spells have the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze their victims, immobilizing them through magical means" isn't describing three ways to paralyze (supernatural ability, spell-like ability, magical means); it's describing two ways to paralyze (supernatural ability, spell-like ability), both of which work through magical means.

-Hyp.

 

[TYPO5478]

"Some monsters and spells have the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze their victims, immobilizing them through magical means" isn't describing three ways to paralyze (supernatural ability, spell-like ability, magical means); it's describing two ways to paralyze (supernatural ability, spell-like ability), both of which work through magical means.

You're probably right. I just find, if we're going to be interpreting the rules anyhow, it's easier to interpret the paralysis description to include spells that cause subjects to be paralyzed as paralysis attacks (regardless of whether or not they are supernatural or spell-like spells) than it is to interpret an immunity to paralysis attacks as an immunity to being paralyzed under any circumstances (such as Dex 0). I believe the latter interpretation strays further from the intent of the rules than does the former. At any rate, it just causes fewer problems.

Assuming (or deciding) that an immunity to an ability implies an immunity to the condition that ability causes results in situations like the one Sunfist described above: that an immunity to death attacks constitutes an immunity to becoming dead under any circumstances ever. Or that an immunity to poison constitutes an immunity to any condition poison could cause (ability damage, unconsciousness, death, etc.) irrespective of whether the condition was actually caused by poison or not. I simply don't believe that's what the rules intended.

What's your interpretation, Hyp? Have I missed something? How would you solve this conundrum?