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

[TYPO5478]

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.

Well, first of all, I think evilbob was specifically looking for 3.5 situations, and BoVD is 3.0.

Second, I think in most cases penalties to ability scores can't drop a score to zero (like touch of idiocy). It has to be either damage or drain.

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).
...
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.

Would a creature immune to being sickened be affected by crushing despair? The spell description neglects to mention the word "sickened," but the effect is the same.

 

[KarinsDad]

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

Conditions, penalties, other game elements, what's the difference?

One rule says X.

The other rule says Y which is explicitly defined as X.

You are saying that Immune to Y does not mean Immune to X.

I am saying that Immune to Y means Immune to X because the definition of Y is X. Logic 101.


The analogy is fine because it does not matter what game mechanic element X is. You are claiming that since X includes a condition, that somehow means something special whereas if X does not contain a condition, it does not.

 

[James McMurray]

Well, first of all, I think evilbob was specifically looking for 3.5 situations, and BoVD is 3.0.

Second, I think in most cases penalties to ability scores can't drop a score to zero (like touch of idiocy). It has to be either damage or drain.

The Frostburn spell, whichever one it is, is definitely one that allows Dex to hit 0. I'm almost positive that it's actual damage, and that the penalty is a house rule. But either way, it can definitely drop you to 0.

 

[Elethiomel]

Conditions, penalties, other game elements, what's the difference?

The difference is that if a living creature somehow gains immunity to death effects, they can still die from hit point loss. Being immune to paralysis means you're immune to effects that directly cause paralysis, but not immune to losing the ability to move indirectly, say from strength or dexterity damage.

 

[TYPO5478]

Conditions, penalties, other game elements, what's the difference?

Indeed. Why have rules at all if they don't mean anything?

One rule says X.

The other rule says Y which is explicitly defined as X.

You are saying that Immune to Y does not mean Immune to X.

I am saying that Immune to Y means Immune to X because the definition of Y is X.

Just to substitute:

One rule says helpless.

The other rule says paralyzed which is explicitly defined as helpless.

You are saying that Immune to paralyzed does not mean Immune to helpless.

I am saying that Immune to paralyzed means Immune to helpless because the definition of paralyzed is helpless.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The alternative interpretation is ludicrous.

The analogy is fine because it does not matter what game mechanic element X is. You are claiming that since X includes a condition, that somehow means something special whereas if X does not contain a condition, it does not.

Obviously it does matter. Helpless not only includes paralyzed, but a number of other conditions. Being immune to one thing that can cause helplessness does not constitute a general immunity to helplessness.

 

[Sunfist]

Conditions, penalties, other game elements, what's the difference?

One rule says X.

The other rule says Y which is explicitly defined as X.

You are saying that Immune to Y does not mean Immune to X.

I am saying that Immune to Y means Immune to X because the definition of Y is X. Logic 101.

That's not logic, that's your preference. It sounds like to me that you have a preference and you are trying to interpret the rules to match that preference. Conversely, it sounds like TYPO is trying to examine the rules to figure out the writers' intent.

You noted earlier that in the description for paralysis it states that a character is helpless. However, that does not logically mean that paralysis = helpless. Helpless is part of what it means to be paralyzed, but it's not the whole. Consider this statement, "The apple is red". This does not mean that apple = red. This means that the apple's color = red.

But all of this is ignoring the most important point. As someone else mentioned in this thread, Dexterity is an entity's ability to move around and do things. With a score of 0, you cannot move around and do things. Yes, undead are immune to the condition paralysis, but they are not immune to having a dex of 0 when an ability such as this one causes it to happen. And when they have a dex of zero, they can't move.

This is the same as a character that is immune to Death. Even though they are immune to death, if you take their hitpoints to -10, they die. I'm pretty sure that a good description of death is "being dead". You might say "Dead = being dead". Unfortunately for them, even though they are immune to death, they are not immune to being dead when their hit points are -10. Likewise, an undead who is immune to paralysis is not immune to not moving around (which some might describe as being paralyzed) when its dex is 0.

 

[KarinsDad]

Just to substitute:

If you are going to substitute, substitute the entire set of rules and not just the one word that you need to support your POV:

One rule says that the character cannot move at all. He stands motionless, rigid, and helpless.

The other rule says the character is paralyzed which is explicitly defined as is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless.

You are saying that Immune to paralyzed does not mean Immune to unable to move and therefore helpless due to having Dex = 0 which is explicitly defined as paralyzed. That's a contradiciton.

I am saying that Immune to paralyzed means Immune to unable to move and therefore helpless due to having Dex = 0 which is explicitly defined as paralyzed, because the definition of paralyzed due to Dex = 0 is unable to move and helpless and the definition of Dex = 0 is unable to move and helpless.

They both have the same definition.

He is not helpless with either of these set of rules solely because he is helpless as you are implying.

He is helpless because he is unable to move.

He is unable to move because he is paralyzed.


By dropping out the entire set of definitions, you change the meaning. Hence, as you so eloquently put it:

The alternative interpretation is ludicrous.

Why? Because both definitions are identical and both definitions are rules for Dex = 0.

But all of this is ignoring the most important point. As someone else mentioned in this thread, Dexterity is an entity's ability to move around and do things. With a score of 0, you cannot move around and do things. Yes, undead are immune to the condition paralysis, but they are not immune to having a dex of 0 when an ability such as this one causes it to happen. And when they have a dex of zero, they can't move.

I did not state that they are immune to having a Dex of 0.

I stated that a Dex of 0 is explicilty defined as paralyzed, hence, they are immune to the effect of Dex of 0.


The counter position is that the Dex = 0 definition of helpless is not due to paralysis. In order to have this position, there has to not be a rule that Dex = 0 is defined as paralzyed. Unfortunately, that is not the case for the opposing POV.

 

[Elethiomel]

I stated that a Dex of 0 is explicilty defined as paralyzed, hence, they are immune to the effect of Dex of 0.

Here's where we differ. You're using "effect" here in the DnD sense of the word, I assume, since creatures can be "immune" to this "effect". I would be using it in another sense or, to be more clear, substitute another word - "consequence". I do not think that rules applications are effects, I think they are consequences.

The consequence of a living creature being reduced to -10 hit points or less is death. Hence being immune to death effects will not stop someone from becoming dead from having their hit points reduced to -10 or less.

The consequence of having 0 DEX is paralysation. Hence being immune to paralysation effects will not stop someone from becoming rigid and immovable (paralysed) from having their DEX reduced to 0.

 

[KarinsDad]

The consequence of having 0 DEX is paralysation. Hence being immune to paralysation effects will not stop someone from becoming rigid and immovable (paralysed) from having their DEX reduced to 0.

Semantical window dressing.

It is not immune to paralyzation effects. That is a new concept you are adding. It is immune to paralyzation. Period.

The counter position is that Undead are not immune to Dex = 0, even though Dex = 0 is explicitly defined as being paralyzed.

Hmmm.

 

[Elethiomel]

Semantical window dressing.

I disagree that my position is only semantic window dressing. I don't think I shall be able to convince you otherwise, though, so I shall let my argument rest here.