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

[TYPO5478]

The designers explicitly stated that Dex 0 = Paralyzed and Paralyzed = Helpless.

No, they did not say paralyzed = helpless; that interpretation can also be written "helpless = paralyzed" and that isn't necessarily true. What the designers have said is paralyzed -> helpless, but helpless ~-> paralyzed.

I think that ABS general rule is just not specific enough to be clear.

On the contrary, I think it is quite specific. It specifically uses the term "helpless" which is a defined game term. If they didn't mean helpless, they wouldn't have said helpless.

Look at the language for Str 0 in the Ability Damaged section:

A character with Strength 0 falls to the ground and is helpless.

Obviously there are other ways to be helpless which are not enumerated in the description of the helpless condition. Since a character with Str 0 is neither paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping nor unconscious, we must assume that a creature can be deemed helpless simply by the imposition of the condition. That is what the ABS rule does: it describes characters with Dex 0 as being helpless simply because they are helpless, not because they are paralyzed.

The designers might have wanted Undead to be helpless due to other reasons (such as being bound), but they explicitly did not want them to be helpless due to paralyzation.

They're not helpless because they're paralyzed. They're helpless because they're helpless. If a character gets stunned, are they also dazed because they are stunned? Of course not; they're not dazed at all, but they are still stunned. Helpless undead are not paralyzed at all, but they are still helpless.

 

[KarinsDad]

No, they did not say paralyzed = helpless;

Sure they did.

Paralyzed: A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless

The real crux of this argument is that you are stating that Dex 0 is multiple conditions: unable to move, helpless, and paralyzed.

Whereas I am stating the Dex 0 is one condition: Paralyzed (which includes unable to move and helpless). The unable to move and helpless parts are a result of being paralyzed and it is all one big condition.

You are basing your interpretation from the general Ability Score Loss rule and I am basing my interpretation from the specific Ability Damage rule.


I really think designer intent is that Undead are immune to being paralzyed, regardless of how that occurs. Your interpretation is doing an end around on this and undead become paralyzed by merely being unable to move and helpless.

That's pure semantics and totally ignores designer intent that undead be immune to being paralyzed. In your interpretation, they are for all intents and purposes still paralyzed, you are just calling it unable to move and helpless. But, it's the same thing regardless of the words you use.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Last time this came up, I took the same position as TYPO.

Normally, a creature with 0 Dex cannot move at all, stands motionless, rigid, and helpless, and in addition is paralyzed.

A creature immune to paralysis with 0 Dex cannot move at all, stands motionless, rigid, and helpless, but at least is not paralyzed. It's a small comfort, of course.

On the other hand, there's a parallel to be drawn with the Hold Person spell.

The Hold Person spell says the subject is paralyzed; it also says the subject can take no actions. The paralyzed condition says the subject may only take purely mental actions.

When the Hold Person spell says "no actions", does it mean "paralyzed, and in addition to that condition, may take no actions"? Or does it mean "paralyzed, and therefore may take no actions as per the paralyzed text"? The first prohibits purely mental actions; the second allows them, since the full description of what no-actions-due-to-paralysis means is given in the paralysis text.

Take into account that the Hold Person spell, in addition to saying "The subject may take no actions", says that the subject may attempt a saving throw each round... and defines that save as a full round action.

Is there a parallel here? Is there doubt as to whether "cannot move at all, stands motionless, rigid, and helpless" is an explicit condition imposed in addition to paralysis, or rather simply an explanation of what paralysis entails?

-Hyp.

 

[blargney the second]

If your car is missing a tire and out of gas, it ain't moving even if you replace the tire. Out of gas = Dex/Str 0.

 

[KarinsDad]

Last time this came up, I took the same position as TYPO.

Normally, a creature with 0 Dex cannot move at all, stands motionless, rigid, and helpless, and in addition is paralyzed.

A creature immune to paralysis with 0 Dex cannot move at all, stands motionless, rigid, and helpless, but at least is not paralyzed. It's a small comfort, of course.

I answered this post last night, but my answer is gone. I'll give the Reader's Digest Condensed version of what I wrote.

Dexterity 0 means that the character cannot move at all. He stands motionless, rigid, and helpless.

...

A character with Dexterity 0 is paralyzed.
A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless

Both of the rules are stating the exact same thing (i.e. paralyzed) using slightly different words:

cannot move at all / motionless = unable to move
rigid = frozen in place
helpless = helpless


They are not describing two different conditions, they are describing the exact same condition (Dex = 0 or paralyzed).

Stating that undead are not paralyzed by Dex 0, but they "cannot move at all, stand motionless, rigid, and helpless" is pure sophistry. The undead are still paralyzed with that interpretation, it is just called something else.

By definition (quoted above), Dex = 0 is paralyzed.

If the book stated "In addition to being paralyzed, Dex = 0 also gives x, y, and z", then undead would not be immune to x, y, or z unless that were a property of undead.

But the book is merely restating the definition of paralyzed in the Ability Score Loss rules.

 

[TYPO5478]

They are not describing two different conditions, they are describing the exact same condition (Dex = 0 or paralyzed).

I think that paralyzed and helpless are two distinct conditions (with two distinct descriptions) that have similar effects. There's certainly a precedent for one condition duplicating some (or all) of the effects of another condition without actually being that other condition. Saying that paralyzed and helpless are the same condition is like saying a battleaxe and a longsword are the same weapon because they do the same amount and type of damage; just ignore all the minute differences. Your attention is selective; the minute differences are what make them distinct.

I tried to make the distinction with logical operators above, but I may not have made it clearly. To say "paralyzed = helpless" is to say that paralyzed and helpless are the same thing, that they are interchangeable; the equality operator is symmetric. In other words, any time a creature was affected by the paralyzed condition, you could substitute the helpless condition and vice versa. Obviously this means that Undead could never be helpless (not to mention several other "wonky" implications described by others above) by virtue of their immunity to paralysis.

On the other hand, the description of the paralyzed condition can be read to mean "a paralyzed character becomes helpless," or "paralyzed implies helpless" (i.e. paralyzed -> helpless). The implication operator is not symmetric, so "paralyzed implies helpless" does not mean that "helpless implies paralyzed." This means that a character who is paralyzed is necessarily helpless, but a character who is helpless is not necessarily paralyzed. This interpretation keeps the two conditions distinct and prevents such bizarre situations as being insusceptible to a greater effect due to an immunity to a lesser one.

Stating that undead are not paralyzed by Dex 0, but they "cannot move at all, stand motionless, rigid, and helpless" is pure sophistry. The undead are still paralyzed with that interpretation, it is just called something else.

Imagine a creature immune to being dazed but not immune to being stunned. If it were hit by a monk's stunning fist (and failed its save), what would its condition be? Completely stunned (as the description of the condition)? Or would it only take the AC and Dex penalties and drop what it's holding, but still be able to take actions? Is it immune to having its actions restricted by any condition just because it is immune to one condition that restricts actions?

You are basing your interpretation from the general Ability Score Loss rule and I am basing my interpretation from the specific Ability Damage rule.

I disagree. I'm basing my interpretation on both rules whereas you are basing yours on only one. If a circumstance renders a creature both paralyzed and helpless, it may be redundant, but it is not irrelevant.

If the book stated "In addition to being paralyzed, Dex = 0 also gives x, y, and z", then undead would not be immune to x, y, or z unless that were a property of undead.

Are you really hanging your interpretation on the lack of the word "also"?

 

[SadisticFishing]

This is a lot simpler than you think. Your dexterity is how well you can move. 0 dexterity means you can't move. Ergo, no matter what has 0 dex, it cannot move, whether or not it is paralyzed!

 

[KarinsDad]

Are you really hanging your interpretation on the lack of the word "also"?

Are you really hanging your interpretation on an omission that is written in one place and not written in the other?

One rule says:

Dexterity 0 is paralyzed (i.e. frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless).

The other rules says:

The character cannot move at all. He stands motionless, rigid, and helpless.


They are both saying the exact same thing. One omitted the word "paralyzed".

 

[James McMurray]

Side A: Paralyzed and helpless!

side B: Helpless because you're paralyzed!

Side A: Nuh uh!

Side B: Uh huh!

Side A: Nuh uh!

Side B: Uh huh!

Side A: Nuh uh!

Side B: Uh huh!

Side A: Nuh uh!

Side B: Uh huh!

Side A: Nuh uh!

Side B: Uh huh!

Does that about cover the thread so far?

 

[TYPO5478]

Are you really hanging your interpretation on an omission that is written in one place and not written in the other?

No. I'm hanging my interpretation on the inclusion of two separate and discretely defined game terms.

Does that about cover the thread so far?

I think you missed a few. .