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

[blargney the second]

KarinsDad, do you think immunity to sickened grants immunity to shakened?

 

[Sunfist]

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.

I never said you denied that their Dex went to zero. My point, of course, is the section that you removed from the quote. Having a dex of zero means you can't move, even if you are immune to paralysis in exactly the same way that having HP of -10 makes you dead, even if you are immune to death.

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.

No, our position is that paralysis is one of the things that happens at Dex = 0.

Again, immunity to death does not prevent being dead at -10 HP. Immunity to paralysis does not prevent immobilization at 0 Dex.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Again, immunity to death does not prevent being dead at -10 HP.

This one's confusing me... I would assume that immunity to death does prevent being dead at -10.

Do you mean immunity to death attacks, or immunity to death effects, or immune to spells with the [Death] descriptor?

Or do you actually mean "immune to death"?

-Hyp.

 

[Sunfist]

This one's confusing me... I would assume that immunity to death does prevent being dead at -10.

Do you mean immunity to death attacks, or immunity to death effects, or immune to spells with the [Death] descriptor?

Or do you actually mean "immune to death"?

-Hyp.

I mean immunity to Death as in Death attacks, similarly to how the undead are immune to Paralysis.

 

[TYPO5478]

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.

So, again, to substitute:

One rule says X.

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

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

I am saying that Immune to Y means Immune to A, because the definition of B is C and the definition of D is C.

Sorry, you don't get to change your variables in the middle of the equation. If you are going to substitute, substitute the same thing for the same variables and don't just change them around to support your POV. By constantly changing the variables, you change the meaning.

He is helpless because he is unable to move.

The rules don't say that. They just say he's helpless. They don't say why.

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

Dex 0 isn't defined exclusively as paralyzed, hence, undead are not immune to all the effects of Dex 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 paralyzed.

No, there just has to not be a rule that says a character with Dex 0 is helpless because he's paralyzed. Which there isn't.

KarinsDad, do you think immunity to sickened grants immunity to shakened?

Good luck with that. I've asked him several similar questions and he's ignored all of them.

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.... 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.

I appreciate the support, but I've already tried to explain to KD that being immune to a condition does not make a creature immune to other effects that are similar to (or even exactly the same as) that condition. Rhetorical questions like "Conditions, penalties, other game elements, what's the difference?" just demonstrate his patent refusal to acknowledge such concepts. But maybe you'll have more luck than I have.

 

[KarinsDad]

The rules don't say that. They just say he's helpless. They don't say why.

One rule does not clarify it. Another does.

And in fact, it is the specific rule, not the general rule that clarifies it.

No, there just has to not be a rule that says a character with Dex 0 is helpless because he's paralyzed. Which there isn't.

One of the two rules explicitly states that: helpless explicitly due to the paralyzation condition. Just because that explicit reason for helpless disagrees with your POV does not mean it is not written there in black and white.

 

[KarinsDad]

Good luck with that. I've asked him several similar questions and he's ignored all of them.

The reason I did not answer those questions is because they are irrelevant to the conversation.

In the original question, we have Dex = 0 is defined as X, and Dex = 0 is defined as Y which is defined as X. The definitions are exactly the same and one is explicitly defined as the other, hence, the rules are the same and designer intent is clear. Immunity to X is identical to Immunity to Y since Y is defined as X.


The other question uses a logical fallacy that the situations between one Dex = 0 rule and another Dex = 0 rule is similar to a totally different comparison of shakened and staggered. Although shakened and staggered have similar definitions, they are not identical, nor do they have an explicit rule that indicates that one is defined as the other like in this case. Apples and Oranges on the comparisons.

These type of logical fallacy questions happen a lot on message boards. I tend to ignore them because people are just baiting with them. And, of course, people who point out that these fallacy questions are being ignored are also just baiting.

It's not worth the effort. If the non-sequitor question is not answered, people claim that the lack of an answer is some sort of support for their position. If the question is answered as both false and irrelevant, then people claim that the opposing (surface similar, but not similar in reality) position must also be false and hence the question is relevant. It's a lose lose situation to go down one of those rabbit holes because people do not use logic when they do so, they use logical fallacies.


So bottom line, the question is non-related and irrelevant, although I'm sure that the opposing POV will try to now prove that it is related and relevant. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[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!

QFT.

Yes, I am quoting myself. But it really is this simple.

 

[Sunfist]

The reason I did not answer those questions is because they are irrelevant to the conversation.

In the original question, we have Dex = 0 is defined as X, and Dex = 0 is defined as Y which is defined as X. The definitions are exactly the same and one is explicitly defined as the other, hence, the rules are the same and designer intent is clear. Immunity to X is identical to Immunity to Y since Y is defined as X.


The other question uses a logical fallacy that the situations between one Dex = 0 rule and another Dex = 0 rule is similar to a totally different comparison of shakened and staggered. Although shakened and staggered have similar definitions, they are not identical, nor do they have an explicit rule that indicates that one is defined as the other like in this case. Apples and Oranges on the comparisons.

These type of logical fallacy questions happen a lot on message boards. I tend to ignore them because people are just baiting with them. And, of course, people who point out that these fallacy questions are being ignored are also just baiting.

It's not worth the effort. If the non-sequitor question is not answered, people claim that the lack of an answer is some sort of support for their position. If the question is answered as both false and irrelevant, then people claim that the opposing (surface similar, but not similar in reality) position must also be false and hence the question is relevant. It's a lose lose situation to go down one of those rabbit holes because people do not use logic when they do so, they use logical fallacies.


So bottom line, the question is non-related and irrelevant, although I'm sure that the opposing POV will try to now prove that it is related and relevant. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No, I would never attempt a rational conversation with you after a post like this. And that's beside the fact that I already showed why your second paragraph is wrong. But then, when your argument style is to ignore posts that disprove your statements and belittle everyone arguing against you...

 

[Pielorinho]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No, I would never attempt a rational conversation with you after a post like this.

Moderator's Notes:

I think both of you know better than this. You may argue a point with civility and respect. You may not mock the person who holds the other viewpoint, and you may not engage in personal attacks. I need both of you to leave this thread.

Daniel