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

[blargney the second]

However, something that cannot move is effectively "paralyzed" - thus the confusion.

Lack of ability to move isn't the same as the specific game term paralyzed. Don't overthink it...

 

[TYPO5478]

FYI: elementals are also "immune to paralysis." Evil elementals are specifically mentioned in the text as well.

So I guess I could re-ask this question, disregarding all BoED/3.0 cheese and wonkiness:

If an elemental that is immune to paralysis is effected by something that lowers its Dex score to zero, is it effectively paralyzed?

I vote aye. Again, not being able to move does not imply the condition paralyzed.

(Side question, with cheese: does golden ice work against undead?)

I think you mean elementals instead of undead, right? I say yes to both.

 

[KarinsDad]

In a previous game, our VoP Monk took the feat. It was annoying...and useless. We started throwing things at the player......

I would think it would be real good for Monks against some opponents. DR is tougher for monks to get through, so instead of wasting an opponent with hit point damage, one could waste him with Dex damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is actually particularly tricky: effectively, these are the same thing - however, TYPO is making a distinction between "paralysis," a special ability that causes you to be paralyzed, and "being paralyzed," which is a condition that might be caused by any number of things. Undead are clearly immune to special abilities that cause "paralysis," but I don't know if anything can completely be immune to "being paralyzed" - take, for instance, an undead being frozen in a block of ice. Clearly, they have "been paralyzed," but not affected by something that causes "paralysis." Tricky.

This is an excellent point.

No, it's not an excellent point.

You are confusing the word paralysis with immobile. An undead caught in a block of ice would be immobile, not paralyzed.

The rule is quite clear. Dex 0 = paralysis.

 

[TYPO5478]

The rule is quite clear. Dex 0 = paralysis.

Or it would be if there were only one rule; but as you pointed out, there isn't.

The rule you refer to specifically uses the term "paralyzed," implying the condition. The other rule specifically lacks the term "paralyzed," implying immobility.

How do you determine which rule takes precedent?

 

[DungeonMaester]

Or it would be if there were only one rule; but as you pointed out, there isn't.

The rule you refer to specifically uses the term "paralyzed," implying the condition. The other rule specifically lacks the term "paralyzed," implying immobility.

How do you determine which rule takes precedent?

Helpless

---Rusty

 

[KarinsDad]

Or it would be if there were only one rule; but as you pointed out, there isn't.

The rule you refer to specifically uses the term "paralyzed," implying the condition. The other rule specifically lacks the term "paralyzed," implying immobility.

How do you determine which rule takes precedent?

First, there is not a true contradiction in the rules. Both rules state that the character cannot move.

Second, WotC takes the view that explicit rules take precedence over omissions. For example, when 3E first came out, there where 5 places where the Stunned condition was discussed. 4 of them did not specify that the target lost his weapon. 1 location specified that the target lost his weapon. And that was not in the Stunned condition part of the DMG (the main location for conditions), rather it was in some section in the PHB. WotC ruled that the 1 rule trumped the other 4.

In other words, both rules state that the creature is immobile. One rule states that the creature is also paralyzed. Since that rule does not contradict the other rule, it trumps. It is merely additional information that the other rule failed to supply.

 

[evilbob]

First, there is not a true contradiction in the rules. Both rules state that the character cannot move.

And I guess this is where this part of the discussion stops to me. If "immobile and helpless" means the same in-game thing as "paralyzed," whether it's a descriptive term or the condition itself seems functionally irrelavent to this argument (at least, in my opinion). I understand that the D&D condition is one thing, but I don't think it matters to what I'm trying to ask.

In any case, maybe I can re-word my questions again:

A) If an elemental is reduced to zero dex, can it move and is it helpless? (My guess: cannot move and is helpless.)

B) If an undead - normally immune to physical ability damage - is hit with golden ice, does the physical ability-damaing ravage supercede the immunity? (My guess: probably no, but not sure.)

 

[blargney the second]

You're looking at it too hard.

If my character has a -2 penalty to hit, what's he suffering from?

 

[moritheil]

You're looking at it too hard.

If my character has a -2 penalty to hit, what's he suffering from?

That depends on why he has the -2 penalty!