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

[evilbob]

I think that paralyzed and helpless are two distinct conditions (with two distinct descriptions) that have similar effects.

To be fair I don't think KarensDad is trying to say that they are the same condition (although I could be wrong), merely that one includes the other to the point of being effectively covered by the same definition in this case. (A better example using a weapon analogy like the one above might be that a greatsword and a longsword are not the same weapon, but a larger creature could use a greatsword like a longsword: in this case they are still separate things but they could have the same effective definition based on your perspective. Or that might just be confusing...)

So, to paraphrase in a slightly different way than James McMurray:
TYPO: undead are immune to paralysis but not to Dex = 0, which renders them helpless if their Dex is zero
KarensDad: undead are immune to being helpless from Dex = 0, because they are immune to paralysis, even if their Dex is zero

Feel free to correct if I've misrepresented, but it seems like you guys are ever so slightly misunderstanding each other, perhaps. Just trying to help.


In any case, for what it's worth: I've decided for my own campaign to alter (house rule) the wording of ravages/afflictions to specifically exclude doing physical ability point damage to anything with physical ability point immunity, which undead have. This basically side-steps the issue for undead by maintaining their immunity to Dex damage. However, if an evil elemental (immune to paralysis) were to suffer enough Dex damage to take it to Dex = 0 (since they are not immune to physical ability point damage), I would rule it "effectively paralyzed."

That actually might make a good "ask wizards" or sage question, if phrased without referencing wonky 3.0 rules: "If an elemental (immune to paralysis) was hit with several doses of Terinav root poison (Dex damage) to drop to zero dexterity, would that make it paralyzed?" ...Anyone know how to do that?

 

[KarinsDad]

To be fair I don't think KarensDad is trying to say that they are the same condition (although I could be wrong), merely that one includes the other to the point of being effectively covered by the same definition in this case. (A better example using a weapon analogy like the one above might be that a greatsword and a longsword are not the same weapon, but a larger creature could use a greatsword like a longsword: in this case they are still separate things but they could have the same effective definition based on your perspective. Or that might just be confusing...)

So, to paraphrase in a slightly different way than James McMurray:
TYPO: undead are immune to paralysis but not to Dex = 0, which renders them helpless if their Dex is zero
KarensDad: undead are immune to being helpless from Dex = 0, because they are immune to paralysis, even if their Dex is zero

A better analogy would be two rules talking about a different condition:


A character in this magical mist drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).

And a second rule:

A character in this magical mist is stunned.

Both of these are stating the exact same thing, the second rule just better clarifies what is meant by the first rule.

A creature immune to stun would not "drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)" just because the first rule forgot to mention the word Stun.


TYPO would state here that even though the creature is immune to Stun, he would still "drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)" because the first rule did not explicitly state the Stun condition, hence, all of these other game effects from the first rule trump the second rule, even though the second rule is a superset of all of the game effects stated by the first rule.

 

[evilbob]

That is a much better example! And to completely speak for TYPO: Yes - yes, I believe he would say exactly that, because of the exact reason you gave. I think many folks on this board would also do the same. And many folks on this board would rule as you would, as well.

As it turns out, I would do that occationally, but in other instances use the first option based on additional reasoning.

 

[hong]

TYPO would state here that even though the creature is immune to Stun, he would still "drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)" because the first rule did not explicitly state the Stun condition, hence, all of these other game effects from the first rule trump the second rule, even though the second rule is a superset of all of the game effects stated by the first rule.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[James McMurray]

I guess I'm one of those unpredictable bastard GMs. In the Dex 0 instance I'd rule they're helpless. In the magical mist setting I'd rule that the descriptions are meant to both convey stunning, so they're immune.

 

[TYPO5478]

A better analogy would be two rules talking about a different condition:

A character in this magical mist drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).

And a second rule:

A character in this magical mist is stunned.

I disagree that this is a better analogy. It only refers to one condition whereas the situation we're discussing refers to two.

And to completely speak for TYPO: Yes - yes, I believe he would say exactly that, because of the exact reason you gave.

Well, you're partially right. I would say yes, but not because the word "stun" (or some variation) is missing. It's because each of those penalties are separate and distinct, just like "paralyzed" and "helpless"; the fact that they mimic being stunned is beside the point. If, on the other hand, the character description said "Immune to stunning, dropping held objects, being prevented from taking actions, AC penalties, and loss of Dex bonus for any reason," then I'd agree.

How about this: a creature is immune to being stunned. It gets hit with four different spells, each of which have an effect equal to one of the stunned penalties (drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses Dexterity bonus to AC respectively). Once the fourth spell hits, do none of the conditions apply because the creature is effectively stunned? I say no. Undead are immune to being paralyzed; they are not immune to being effectively paralyzed.

That actually might make a good "ask wizards" or sage question, if phrased without referencing wonky 3.0 rules: "If an elemental (immune to paralysis) was hit with several doses of Terinav root poison (Dex damage) to drop to zero dexterity, would that make it paralyzed?"

No, it wouldn't be paralyzed. Elementals are immune to poison.

 

[blargney the second]

KarinsDad, so by your logic, anything that is immune to shaken is immune to sickened?

 

[evilbob]

Well, you're partially right.

Oooo, so close! evilbob's TYPO prediction ratio: 0.0%

No, it wouldn't be paralyzed. Elementals are immune to poison.

Ha! Bad example again. Ok, fair enough - how about: "is hit with a spell that does Dex damage?"

 

[TYPO5478]

KarinsDad, so by your logic, anything that is immune to shaken is immune to sickened?

I think (if I understand his argument correctly), it would be the other way around: anything immune to being sickened is also immune to being shaken. All of the penalties in shaken exist in sickened, but not vice versa.

Ha! Bad example again. Ok, fair enough - how about: "is hit with a spell that does Dex damage?"

Is there a spell like that? It might make a difference if the question is practical rather than academic. If there is a spell, I'm definitely taking it.

 

[James McMurray]

There is a BoVD spell that shoots your fingers at someone and deals dex damage. There's also a couple spells in Frostburn, but I can't remember if they're dex damage or dex penalties, although I guess it's immaterial to the question as long as the creature's current dex hits 0.