Drowned from MM3 - Q about Drowning Aura

[darthkilmor]

One of my players is arguing that since the Drowning Aura is listed as a special attack and is a supernatural ability, it requires a standard action to activate. It seems to me that an 'aura' is a constant/continuous effect.

Which of us is right ? Quotations please as he's very insistent on the Supernatural entry saying its a standard action unless otherwise noted, and there doesn't seem to be any explicit "otherwise noted" for the Drowning Aura.

 

[s-dub]

What's the duration? If none is listed simply assume the undead to have activated it when it first spawned.

 

[s-dub]

Or you can always write it in however you want. YOU are the DM.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Quotations please as he's very insistent on the Supernatural entry saying its a standard action unless otherwise noted, and there doesn't seem to be any explicit "otherwise noted" for the Drowning Aura.

Check if he feels the monk needs to take a standard action to activate Ki Strike any time he wants to bypass damage reduction, or a standard action to activate Diamond Body any time he wants to be immune to poison.

Does the Drowning Aura have the "Drowned can suppress this ability at will" note? If so, I think it's reasonable to assume that it's a standard action to suppress it, and a standard action to reactivate it, but that either condition persists until it's changed.

So he might need to take a standard action in round 1 to set it going, if he had it suppressed in the normal course of a day, but after that it needs no further attention.

-Hyp.

 

[Will]

Description of the ability says 'A drowned gives off a 30' radius emanation of suffocating drowning'
Looking at some other supernatural abilities (winterwight cold aura, for example), I'm pretty sure the usage of 'aura' corresponds to a constant area effect.

That is, I think the intent and implication are clear, but if you have a player who insists on an explicit rule, then I don't think there is one.

Personally, given the nature of writing and the precedent of the text, I don't think strict literal readings of the books are justified.

 

[AuraSeer]

The rule does say: "Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise." So technically, the player is correct that it should take an action to activate. Yet there is no duration specified, so even more technically, you could state that the Drowned took that action in the first round after it became undead-- years or centuries ago.

However, there's one other point which I think sways the argument in the player's favor. This point is that (IMHO) the Drowned is a stupidly broken monster which should never be used unless you're actively trying to screw the PCs; and a DM who intentionally screws the PCs deserves to lose every argument. Therefore your player is correct.

(Or to be serious about it, I think the drowning aura really needs to allow a Fortitude save instead of a Con check. That would at least make the thing less likely to kill multiple 20th-level characters in the first round of combat.)

 

[Will]

I threw a drowned against two PCs, level 9 and 11, wondering how bad it'd get...

Yeah, one was a monk/cleric with Water Breathing prepped. BOOM.

The drowned lasted 5 rounds.

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, a player telling me (as the DM) what one of my monsters can or cannot do with its special abilities is usually out of luck. Except for the tidbits that can be found out via knowledge checks, noone can tell what they are able to do.

However, there's one other point which I think sways the argument in the player's favor. This point is that (IMHO) the Drowned is a stupidly broken monster which should never be used unless you're actively trying to screw the PCs; and a DM who intentionally screws the PCs deserves to lose every argument. Therefore your player is correct.

Having said that, I pretty much agree with the statement that the 'Drowned' is a stupidly broken monster and have therefore refrained from ever using it so far.

 

[darthkilmor]

However, there's one other point which I think sways the argument in the player's favor. This point is that (IMHO) the Drowned is a stupidly broken monster which should never be used unless you're actively trying to screw the PCs; and a DM who intentionally screws the PCs deserves to lose every argument. Therefore your player is correct.

Note: The players character has not fought a drowned, we were merely flipping through books looking at monsters when I noticed the Drowning Aura and was like "Holy @$#% ! +17 grapple check + 20HD + increasing con check ?!? Buh-bye casters.

Also, its not *just* the drowning aura, lots of Su abilites don't "specify otherwise".

I agree, the Drowned is a powerful guy, when I looked up the errata and at first saw they were updated I was like "of course!" and then it was only to bump the CR up by 1 and was like "do-wha!?" CR 10 or 11 would seem more appropriate. That or or reduce the HD from like 20 to 10.

 

[Will]

Undead often have absurdly high HD, particularly once you get past CR 5. It's one of the annoying things about turn undead, too, since the ability craps out once you start facing things like Drowned.

The problem is, of course, that undead HD are pretty anemic, so you have to pile them on to be worth anything.

I thought I had a solution in that same plot above; I threw two lacedons with rogue levels at the group. This made the lacedons have HD of about 8 or so.

Yeah. Monk/cleric cast Disrupting Weapons. Punched one lacedon... POOF. vaporized. Punched the other one... POOF.

Sigh.

(It's one of the things I really don't like in 3e; undead are REALLY binary in many respects)

And yeah, +17 grapple. But it lacks a lot of consequences for grapple, beyond the aura. In TT game we faced fiendish TRexes; CR 10, grapple of __+30__, and Swallow Whole. Half the party ended up in TRex bellies.