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

[moritheil]

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.

It would be pure sophistry if he were arging for pecuniary gain. After all, that's what the Sophists did. However, TYPO seems to genuinely believe that there are at least two different considerations there, and that as a result, a being may be effectively paralyzed (as KD puts it) without being paralyzed. That seems to be a legitimate argument, but not one that can ultimately be resolved without starting with the same assumptions.

(My post is not aimed at KD specifically; I'm just noting my observations on this thread.)

 

[TYPO5478]

That's exactly what I believe, morithiel. Thank you.

I was actually in the process of responding to KD when he got booted out of the thread. Obviously it would be a little cheap of me to reply to someone who can't respond, so I'll try and frame my comments for general address rather than specific rebuttal. On the other hand, when the mod bans the only person on one side of an argument, it kind of makes it difficult to continue the conversation. I'll give it my best, though; if anyone would like to jump in on KD's side (which is not to say speaking for him, but just supporting his position), I'll be happy to continue debating.

I do believe that there is a difference between exact equality and effective equality. For example, the phrase "the dollar bill I accidentally washed last week," and the phrase "the dollar bill which has the serial number G 57908100 B" refer to the same dollar bill. On the other hand, if I lent that dollar to moritheil and later he gave me a different dollar, the two are effectively the same, but not exactly the same. Practically speaking, there's nothing I can't do with the dollar morithiel gave me that I couldn't do with the dollar I gave him. Likewise, paralysis and helplessness are effectively the same, but not exactly the same. If they were exactly the same, that is if the distinction between the states were negligible, the rules wouldn't need both conditions; just one would do. The fact that both exist must mean that there is at least a minuscule difference between the two which separates them even though their ultimate effects are similar. Since the distinction is not negligible, we must assume that each condition appears in the rules intentionally (and separately) and does not refer to the other unless explicitly stated.

 

[Stalker0]

To me ravages break the normal rules for undead, so let them break all the rules. Undead normally cannot be brought to 0 dex, but ravages can. A creature at 0 dex is incapable of moving, I don't care how immune they are to paralysis.

 

[James McMurray]

Anyone ever send that email off to CustServ?

 

[TYPO5478]

Anyone ever send that email off to CustServ?

I didn't, but then I couldn't think of a way to phrase it in 3.5 rule terms that wasn't ultimately theoretic or apocryphal. On the other hand, I didn't try too hard....

I'll see what I can come up with....

 

[TYPO5478]

Looking at the core ruleset, the only monster type I could find that was immune to paralysis effects but not immune to poison was the Dragon type (go figure). So I suppose we could make the question (using evilbob's phrasing): "If a dragon (immune to paralysis) was hit with several doses of Terinav root poison (Dex damage) to drop to zero dexterity, would that make it paralyzed?"

However, during my searching, I noticed something interesting. Many of the entries that refer to a type's immunities use the word "effect". Even more interesting, I realized that the Undead type description uses the word "paralysis" as opposed to "paralyzed". Both of these are explicitly defined game terms. "Paralysis" is defined in the Special Abilities section whereas "paralyzed" is defined in the Condition Summary section. It may seem like splitting hairs (which rules debates don't?), but since both words are specific game terms, and the authors had a choice which one to use, I believe the presence of the word "paralysis" instead of "paralyzed" is significant. The intent appears to be that undead are immune to a paralysis special ability (an effect), but not to the paralyzed condition in general (if it were inflicted by some other means than a paralysis effect, such as Dex 0).

In light of this, it seems the above question may be moot. But we probably ought to ask anyhow.

 

[KarinsDad]

Pielorinho is busy right now. That means that lucky me gets to erase KD's post AND, as an added bonus, give him a three day ban!

Woot! Lucky me. :\

DON'T go against explicit moderator instructions. It's a waste of your time and ours.

 

[TYPO5478]

I know I'll get banned for 3 days for typing in this thread, but go read the paralysis rule you just linked.

If you're gonna do it, go for the gusto!

It states that the creature is paralyzed.

Yes, the paralyzed condition is the result of a paralysis attack. A creature not immune to paralysis attacks or effects would be paralyzed as the result of a paralysis attack. A creature that is immune to paralysis would not be paralyzed as the result of a paralysis attack. But if there were a way to become paralyzed that wasn't the result of a paralysis attack (and there is), a creature immune to paralysis attacks would still become paralyzed under those circumstances. Immunity to a type of attack does not constitute immunity to the condition that attack causes when that condition could be caused by something other than that specific type of attack. I'd make an analogy, but you've already refused to acknowledge argument by analogy, so I won't bother.

The explicitly defined game term paralysis is explicity defined as being paralyzed.

No, the term paralysis is explicitly defined as a "supernatural or spell-like ability" that causes the paralyzed condition. You've already said there isn't a difference between an ability and a condition, but I assure you there is, and the difference is not insignificant. Undead are immune to being affected by the paralysis ability, not the paralyzed condition.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, the term paralysis is explicitly defined as a "supernatural or spell-like ability" that causes the paralyzed condition.

My question:
Some monsters and spells have the supernatural or spell-like ability...

When a spell has the ability to paralyze its victim, is that ability supernatural or spell-like?

-Hyp.

 

[TYPO5478]

When a spell has the ability to paralyze its victim, is that ability supernatural or spell-like?

Neither.

Natural Abilities

This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

Spell casting abilities gained from class levels are natural abilities since they are not designated as extraordinary, supernatural, nor spell-like.