Collecting Beholder Opinions

[AvatarVecna]

Would you say that a beholder has a discernible head? Discuss. Explain.

[Thurbane]

Ooh, this was pretty hotly debated in one the the VC rounds, I'll see if I can find a link.

Debate starts towards the end of page 3: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?535437-Villainous-Competition-XXIII-Two-Heads-Are-Better-Than-One/page3

My personal vote: no, a Beholder has no discernible head.

Is this for Multi-headed template?

[AvatarVecna]

Ooh, this was pretty hotly debated in one the the VC rounds, I'll see if I can find a link.

Debate starts towards the end of page 3: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?535437-Villainous-Competition-XXIII-Two-Heads-Are-Better-Than-One/page3

My personal vote: no, a Beholder has no discernible head.

Is this for Multi-headed template?

Might be. :smalltongue:

[AvatarVecna]

FWIW I think it'd be worth it's CR, probably even underpowered. Who knows if that applies to Beholder Mage shenanigans on top of it, but if the eyestalks and main eye are counted per head, then a 2-headed beholder is CR 17 all on its own, I think? That's maybe worth it? Idk I mostly find the idea a funny mental image. Multiheaded Hive Mother advancing to colossal and accumulating "extra heads". At some point it's essentially just a gibbering orb. :smalltongue:

[afroakuma]

By any reasonable definition, absolutely not. Approached from the other side: discernible from what? What does a beholder possess that is not a constituent part of its "head?"

In point of fact, it's essentially the core trait of the beholder, beholder-kin, and beholder abominations that they don't have discernible heads.

[Saintheart]

It's of the Aberration type, which has a "bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three." Further grist for the argument it doesn't have a head, because its anatomy doesn't have to have one.

[MinimanMidget]

Does a crawling claw have a hand? A beholder doesn't have a head, it is a head.

[Remuko]

If you cut off a human head and someone finds it otherwise intact on the ground is that a discernable head? I'd say yes.

Likewise about a behold or any similar being. Its entire being IS a head, and its discernable at least by my knowledge of the definition of that word, so I say yes.

[pabelfly]

Had a quick skim of Dragon Magazine 76, which has some lore information about beholders. The beholder has a body, but it's not clear that it has a head. As it's an aberration, I see no reason to assume that it has one, especially since it seems like you're assuming this to get some serious cheese online.

[redking]

I am going with no head. As others have pointed out, beholders are aberrations and the normal rules don't apply.

[Batcathat]

According to Wiktionary, a head is "The part of the body of an animal or human which contains the brain, mouth and main sense organs". So according to that, it would seem that a Beholder has/is a head. Then again, it's not an "animal or human" so maybe not.

[LunaticChaos]

For the purposes of game rules, I would say it does in fact have a head, in that it is mostly head.
Lords of Madness specifically mentions they are capable of wearing head slot items. And the place you would wear a head slot item is your head.

However, if for multiheaded shenanigans it should be noted it treats the eyestalks as the other body parts. So arguably a multiheaded Beholder would have multiple central eyes, but would only have one set of eye stalks. So its possible a multiheaded beholder looks more like this

https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/cherry-trio-with-stem-and-leaf-picture-id183291023?k=6&m=183291023&s=170667a&w=0&h=a-BlzcZVmSoFqZ_3RtlCNjjOOBZ15KQCmb6DmkBWppg=

Than something with dozens of eyestalks.

[hamishspence]

How about Vargouilles - they're an outsider, "a head with wings" and with no discernable body.

If a Vargouille can be multiheaded, I can't see why a Beholder couldn't be. It's "all head" rather than "no head".

A Gibbering Mouther's a better example of a "no-headed aberration". That seems like the sort of monster that would have no "head slot".

[Zombimode]

But can a Vorpal Sword decapitate a Beholder? I don't think so. If the beholder is a head then there is nothing to sever it from.

So maybe the question is to broad. Instead "Has a beholder a head" needs to be combined with the respective use case to obtain an answer.

"Has a beholder a head to wear head gear?" might be answered with "yes".
"Has a beholder a head to be affected by the insta kill property of a Vorpal Sword?" might be answered with "no".

[LunaticChaos]

But can a Vorpal Sword decapitate a Beholder? I don't think so. If the beholder is a head then there is nothing to sever it from.

So maybe the question is to broad. Instead "Has a beholder a head" needs to be combined with the respective use case to obtain an answer.

"Has a beholder a head to wear head gear?" might be answered with "yes".
"Has a beholder a head to be affected by the insta kill property of a Vorpal Sword?" might be answered with "no".

Well first lets look at the actual text of Vorpal


Vorpal: This potent and feared ability allows the weapon to sever the heads of those it strikes. Upon a roll of natural 20 (followed by a successful roll to confirm the critical hit), the weapon severs the opponent’s head (if it has one) from its body. Some creatures, such as many aberrations and all oozes, have no heads. Others, such as golems and undead creatures other than vampires, are not affected by the loss of their heads. Most other creatures, however, die when their heads are cut off. The DM may have to make judgment calls about this sword’s effect.

Bolding for the important bits of that to this argument.
All aberrations are not headless, just many are according to this text.
Vorpal's effect is not "Instantly Kill the Target on a Crit" its "Severing the Head of the Target." Some creatures are unaffected by having their head cut off.

And given this line from Lords of Madness in regards to Beholder Magic item Slots:


Three amulets, brooches, medallions, necklaces, periapts, or scarabs on up to three eyestalks (one item per eyestalk).

Meaning that the Beholder's Throat is its eyestalks by the rules as those are items that can only be placed in the Throat Slot.

I would say the the effect of Vorpal on a Beholder would be the slicing off of one of its eyestalks. As the effect severs the head of the Beholder from its body. To sever one's head you cut through their neck and thus their throat, which in the case of a Beholder is its eyestalks. Which would not kill it but would render that eyestalk inert.

[Elkad]

But can a Vorpal Sword decapitate a Beholder? I don't think so. If the beholder is a head then there is nothing to sever it from.


the weapon severs the opponent’s head from its body.

Correct. Beholders have a head, but they don't have a body. So it fails.

[Zombimode]

I would say the the effect of Vorpal on a Beholder would be the slicing off of one of its eyestalks. As the effect severs the head of the Beholder from its body. To sever one's head you cut through their neck and thus their throat, which in the case of a Beholder is its eyestalks. Which would not kill it but would render that eyestalk inert.


Yes, that sounds reasonable :-)

My general point was less "is a Beholder affected by a Vorpal Sword" and more "having a head" mean different things in different contexts. Trying to answer all cases with a single answer is likely a semantic fallacy.

[DigoDragon]

Trying to think of a multiple- head beholder and what comes to mind is a Coffing evolving into a Wheezing.

But, uh, no I don't think beholders have a discernable head.

[LunaticChaos]

Yes, that sounds reasonable :-)

My general point was less "is a Beholder affected by a Vorpal Sword" and more "having a head" mean different things in different contexts. Trying to answer all cases with a single answer is likely a semantic fallacy.

Not wrong there.
But this was a question concerning the multiheaded template so I figured I'd answer based on what rules are available in the game to make that work. Going with the logic that the eyestalks are not considered part of its head using magic item rules for it one can answer any subsequent questions.

But common sense wise and just expediency sake during game the answer is you can't get a multiheaded beholder nor does vorpal work on it. Just because that is the far easier answer and likely the intended answer.

But...I do admit the image of three floating beholder orbs all connected by ten eye stalks is bloody hilarious though.

[Darg]

A sort of real world example of beholder are opiliones, or harvestmen (one of several daddy long legs). Their heads are their body, and some varieties look like they have huge "faces."

Generally a head contains face things. An extreme example of not having a head is a slime or ooze. A beholder has a head and I don't see why they couldn't be born siamese style to have 2 heads.

[pabelfly]

A sort of real world example of beholder are opiliones, or harvestmen (one of several daddy long legs). Their heads are their body, and some varieties look like they have huge "faces."

Generally a head contains face things. An extreme example of not having a head is a slime or ooze. A beholder has a head and I don't see why they couldn't be born siamese style to have 2 heads.

Because you get twice the abilities of a Beholder for the cost of just two monster hit dice

[fallensavior]

This discussion reminds me of the Labyrinth of Madness module that attempted to assert with a straight face (and an illustrated diagram!) that a beholder can dangle magic full plate armor by straps beneath its body and gain the AC from that armor...and use its telekinesis power to wield weapons with the armor's arms and a land speed with the armor's legs.

[Beni-Kujaku]

In the end, wether the beholder has a head or not is kind of irrelevant, since every effect that requires a head just doesn't work on it. It can't be decapitated by Vorpal, since it has no neck, and since it is its own head, a multiheaded beholder would be.... Well, two beholders. Or the cherry beholder described above, which would be hilarious but not that good mechanics wise.

[wilphe]

What if you crossed a Beholder with an Ettin or Hydra?

[LunaticChaos]

In the end, wether the beholder has a head or not is kind of irrelevant, since every effect that requires a head just doesn't work on it. It can't be decapitated by Vorpal, since it has no neck, and since it is its own head, a multiheaded beholder would be.... Well, two beholders. Or the cherry beholder described above, which would be hilarious but not that good mechanics wise.

I don't know, having two to four antimagic cones that can be directed in different directions is still pretty good and would make for some interesting tactics.

[JoeNapalm]

No. And I would probably follow that up with a DM "I'm watching you" look.

A head, by definition, is separated from the body, typically by a neck. I know someone found a definition above that doesn't include that part, but they had to go to Wiktionary (which states explicitly it is not a repository of factual, in-depth information or even good english) to find it, skipping over dozens of other definitions from actual dictionaries that all include that little caveat that disproves their point.

The answer to any rules lawyer can be drawn from the actual practice of law, that holds this sort of thing to the standard of what the average reasonable person would say, whether or not they explain why they feel that way. If you asked anyone who didn't have an agenda to abuse some Feat, the answer would be "No."

Does a starfish have a head?

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Psyren]

According to Wiktionary, a head is "The part of the body of an animal or human which contains the brain, mouth and main sense organs". So according to that, it would seem that a Beholder has/is a head. Then again, it's not an "animal or human" so maybe not.

For that definition to apply, you'd need a body (with a head "part.")

I therefore vote no head.

[liquidformat]

This discussion reminds me of the Labyrinth of Madness module that attempted to assert with a straight face (and an illustrated diagram!) that a beholder can dangle magic full plate armor by straps beneath its body and gain the AC from that armor...and use its telekinesis power to wield weapons with the armor's arms and a land speed with the armor's legs.

I mean I can reasonably see a set of armor fashioned for a beholder that is pretty much just a sphere with holes for its eyes, and Master of Unseen hand does allow you to wield weapons with telekinesis but not sure how you could swing the walking thing.

You could probably achieve all of that if you had a set of golem armor...

No. And I would probably follow that up with a DM "I'm watching you" look.

A head, by definition, is separated from the body, typically by a neck. I know someone found a definition above that doesn't include that part, but they had to go to Wiktionary (which states explicitly it is not a repository of factual, in-depth information or even good english) to find it, skipping over dozens of other definitions from actual dictionaries that all include that little caveat that disproves their point.

The answer to any rules lawyer can be drawn from the actual practice of law, that holds this sort of thing to the standard of what the average reasonable person would say, whether or not they explain why they feel that way. If you asked anyone who didn't have an agenda to abuse some Feat, the answer would be "No."

Does a starfish have a head?

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

To begin with all the definitions I can find specify being a human or animal contingent for having a head. Also quite a few bugs don't have necks but do have heads so your argument is kind of ruined by that. Also Starfish don't have a brain either which is also a key reoccurring requirement that is more consistent in the definitions I saw than having a neck, so not sure if they are the best animal to point at for your evidence...

I think the eyestocks being correlated with necks is reasonable both for multiheaded and vorpal magic property though this is definitely a case of extremely stinky cheese for multiheaded template that should probably get a book thrown at you. Then again if beholder mage is already on the table this doesn't seem that much worse

[hamishspence]

For a more beholder-like animal, take the octopus. Looks like one huge baggy head, with a bunch of tentacles attached, and all the relevant "internal organs" are inside that big head/body.

Can an octopus be described as a creature whose head is its body?

[Batcathat]

For that definition to apply, you'd need a body (with a head "part.")

It could argued that the Beholder has a body and the head part makes up all out it. Still, I see your point, it's definitely a possible interpretation.

[Xervous]

Obligatory punchline from the bard: “you should have quit when you were ahead.”

[Tzardok]

That means beholders can quit whenever they want.

[Psyren]

It could argued that the Beholder has a body and the head part makes up all out it. Still, I see your point, it's definitely a possible interpretation.

Wiktionary defines "part" as "a fraction of a whole." While 1/1 is technically a fraction, the distinction from "whole" leads me away from that interpretation :smalltongue:

The second definition - "A distinct element of something larger" - definitely rules it out.

[Batcathat]

Wiktionary defines "part" as "a fraction of a whole." While 1/1 is technically a fraction, the distinction from "whole" leads me away from that interpretation :smalltongue:

The second definition - "A distinct element of something larger" - definitely rules it out.

Ah, fair point. I checked the head definitions on Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster too and although they differ a bit, they all describe it as a part of the body so I suppose it points to Beholders not having heads according to most major dictonaries.

[Darg]

Wiktionary defines "part" as "a fraction of a whole." While 1/1 is technically a fraction, the distinction from "whole" leads me away from that interpretation :smalltongue:

The second definition - "A distinct element of something larger" - definitely rules it out.

You are forgetting the eyestalks which are also part of the body. Opiliones have a single solid body and 8 legs. Their head is technically their body too. This also applies to arachnids and some crustaceans as well where the head is not separated from the body by a connecting "neck."


Ah, fair point. I checked the head definitions on Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster too and although they differ a bit, they all describe it as a part of the body so I suppose it points to Beholders not having heads according to most major dictonaries.

I wouldn't say that. There are many critters that don't have "heads" in the human sense, but still possess heads that are a section of the main body. As we can't dissect a beholder, we can't truly rule out that the "head" part of a beholder could be only a section of the body.

[Psyren]

You are forgetting the eyestalks which are also part of the body. Opiliones have a single solid body and 8 legs. Their head is technically their body too. This also applies to arachnids and some crustaceans as well where the head is not separated from the body by a connecting "neck."

I see eyestalks as eyes and therefore not any more distinct from the headbody than any other part.

I wasn't really trying to get into a long drawn out THING over this either, just explaining my vote (which hasn't changed.)

[ShurikVch]

This discussion reminds me of the Labyrinth of Madness module that attempted to assert with a straight face (and an illustrated diagram!) that a beholder can dangle magic full plate armor by straps beneath its body and gain the AC from that armor...and use its telekinesis power to wield weapons with the armor's arms and a land speed with the armor's legs.
Well, "Gangsters of Underdark" article have Vikhrumn "100 gold" Coll the Standard Beholder Hit Man:

When in public, Coll wears an oversized fedora and levitates a long tan trenchcoat underneath him to simulate a torso. Coll also enjoys smoking rather fat (and stinky) cigars; he always has one hanging from his toothy maw.
...
Then, a fierce blow to the head during an attack against a rival city changed Coll's life. Though he survived, the head wound caused the beholder to suffer from a rare form of mania. Coll no longer shared his species' absolute paranoia for all things alien. In fact, Coll began to identify with other species, often confusing himself as a member of those species. Sadly, the ruling Hive Mother had no choice but to exile the demented Vikhrum.
The lonely beholder wandered the caverns of the Underdark until an illithid "businessman" named Dutch befriended him. Dutch introduced Coll into the glitzy hidden society that exists in the Underdark. Coll soon found his place among Dutch’s friends and became a valued member of the Underdark gangsters. Currently, these gangsters use Coll as hiredmuscle. Occasionally, the beholder undertakes "hits" for hisfriends. His fee for these contracts is a mere 100 – hence his accepted nickname.
...
Another interesting aspect of Coll's mania manifests itself when he is pursuing a "contract." Despite the fact that he is quite different from the other humanoid races of the Underdark, Coll believes himself to be inconspicuous when trailing a target. While stalking, Coll "wears" his long trenchcoat and fedora, secure in the belief that no one can distinguish him from the many other inhabitants of gangster society. In fact, if someone were to point out his difference, Coll would adamantly refuse to believe it. The beholder has been known to kill anyone who presses this point.



In the end, wether the beholder has a head or not is kind of irrelevant, since every effect that requires a head just doesn't work on it. It can't be decapitated by Vorpal, since it has no neck
Some things which should/can/may work:
Body Thief - Intellect Devourer (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/intellectDevourer.htm)
Decerebrate (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/decerebrate.htm)
Head Shot feat (Complete Scoundrel)
Extract Brains - Neh-Thalggu (Brain Collector) (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/nehThalggu.htm)
Extraction (Illithids etc)
Necrotic Domination/Necrotic Termination


and since it is its own head, a multiheaded beholder would be.... Well, two beholders. Or the cherry beholder described above, which would be hilarious but not that good mechanics wise.
Maybe, like this? -

https://cdn2.bulbagarden.net/upload/thumb/6/65/James_Weezing.png/250px-James_Weezing.png

[Segev]

Clearly, a multi-headed beholder has one or more eyes at the end of the stalks replaced by a smaller beholder. Still bigger than the original eye, but smaller than the parent beholder. Kind-of like if a human had another human (from the waist up) growing from his wrist.
https://static.zerochan.net/Midori.no.Hibi.full.3691.jpg

[AmberVael]

I would say the beholder has a discernable head, yes.
Poking around for different definitions of heads seems to indicate that another way to define head focuses more on the functions of a head rather than the placement of a head. A lot of the basic definitions are focused on humans.

Even from a human-centric definition though... the beholder is a disembodied head. It has a head, it's missing the everything else.

[Khatoblepas]

Well, a two headed beholder is CR15, which is the same EL as two beholders, and has 1/2+2HD hit points and is a single target. It still, even with multiple heads, cannot aim more than 3 rays in the same arc, even though it has 20 rays. And it's antimagic cones are fixed on an axis - are these beholders back to back, giving them a whole side that isn't covered, or are they side by side, giving their antimagic eyes overlap?

The pros of using a multiheaded beholder:
1) Looks cool
2) Less chance of the two beholders fighting each other to the death over squabbles regarding who is the True Beholder.
3) Can use Beholder Mage to cast 10th+ level spells in epic levels due to having more than 10 eyestalks.

Cons:
1) Less mobility and flexibility.
2) Less hit points in aggregate.
3) Looks a bit silly.

[liquidformat]

Well, a two headed beholder is CR15, which is the same EL as two beholders, and has 1/2+2HD hit points and is a single target. It still, even with multiple heads, cannot aim more than 3 rays in the same arc, even though it has 20 rays. And it's antimagic cones are fixed on an axis - are these beholders back to back, giving them a whole side that isn't covered, or are they side by side, giving their antimagic eyes overlap?

The pros of using a multiheaded beholder:
1) Looks cool
2) Less chance of the two beholders fighting each other to the death over squabbles regarding who is the True Beholder.
3) Can use Beholder Mage to cast 10th+ level spells in epic levels due to having more than 10 eyestalks.

Cons:
1) Less mobility and flexibility.
2) Less hit points in aggregate.
3) Looks a bit silly.

The real question is do they have over 10 eyestalks? If we take the koffing->weezing analogy + eyestalks=neck then all you are actually getting for each additional head is the LA, 2rhd, a bite and another antimagic ray which really isn't that much.

[ShurikVch]

Found a two-headed beholder for 5E:

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/85af25be-6b82-4d5a-a8e8-f5c2acbda952/dcid10w-5f227d64-c28c-41b4-b431-75b032c0c90a.png/v1/fit/w_300,h_900,strp/2heads_by_grumbleputty_dcid10w-300w.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ 9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYw ZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OT gyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7Imhl aWdodCI6Ijw9MTExMCIsInBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzg1YWYyNWJlLT ZiODItNGQ1YS1hOGU4LWY1YzJhY2JkYTk1MlwvZGNpZDEwdy01 ZjIyN2Q2NC1jMjhjLTQxYjQtYjQzMS03NWIwMzJjMGM5MGEucG 5nIiwid2lkdGgiOiI8PTEwMjQifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNl cnZpY2U6aW1hZ2Uub3BlcmF0aW9ucyJdfQ.QH5aoikTx2Xjwev J0m_uwKxeiU-2YV_IuNZ_9p-jPCg

(Apparently, from the I, Tyrant (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/247742/I-Tyrant-7-new-Beholders-for-5th-Edition-DD))

[Thurbane]

Obligatory punchline from the bard: “you should have quit when you were ahead.”

That means beholders can quit whenever they want.

I love a good pun! Well done! :smallbiggrin:


Found a two-headed beholder for 5E:

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/85af25be-6b82-4d5a-a8e8-f5c2acbda952/dcid10w-5f227d64-c28c-41b4-b431-75b032c0c90a.png/v1/fit/w_300,h_900,strp/2heads_by_grumbleputty_dcid10w-300w.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ 9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYw ZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OT gyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7Imhl aWdodCI6Ijw9MTExMCIsInBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzg1YWYyNWJlLT ZiODItNGQ1YS1hOGU4LWY1YzJhY2JkYTk1MlwvZGNpZDEwdy01 ZjIyN2Q2NC1jMjhjLTQxYjQtYjQzMS03NWIwMzJjMGM5MGEucG 5nIiwid2lkdGgiOiI8PTEwMjQifV1dLCJhdWQiOlsidXJuOnNl cnZpY2U6aW1hZ2Uub3BlcmF0aW9ucyJdfQ.QH5aoikTx2Xjwev J0m_uwKxeiU-2YV_IuNZ_9p-jPCg

(Apparently, from the I, Tyrant (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/247742/I-Tyrant-7-new-Beholders-for-5th-Edition-DD))

That is quite interesting.


As we can't dissect a beholder, we can't truly rule out that the "head" part of a beholder could be only a section of the body.


https://i.imgur.com/JCxU45Y.png

If we are talking dictionary or medical definitions of "head", the anatomy section on Beholders in LoM is interesting. The section refers to the Beholder's body; the term head is never mentioned, that I can see.

As per the illustration, if we are trying to use a real world definition of head, there's all sorts of extra organs and such (stomach, intestines, lung, womb etc.) inside a beholder that are not found in the "head" of any real world creature I know of. Unless, as mentioned, we define creatures such as cephalopods as having "heads". Interestingly, the term cephalopod itself comes from the Greek for "head-feet".

It's very debatable, but like I said earlier, "discernible head" is not something that a Beholder possesses. IMHO, it has a "head-like" body.

[hamishspence]

How about a Vargouille? A new vargouille coming into being, involves a person's head breaking off from their body, sprouting wings, growing a bit bigger - and that's the Vargouille.


And as an Outsider, they don't need to eat, so they might not necessarily have a stomach inside that head (Since they do need to breathe, it might raise questions as to whether new lungs have grown somewhere in there, though).


Is it fairer to characterise a Vargouille as being "all head" or as "having no discernible head"?

[Thurbane]

To somewhat undermine what I just said, the 2E supplement I, Tyrant describes a beholder as having a "skull" inside - can you have a skull without having a head? Even if so, still not "discernible", for my 2 coppers.

[loky1109]

Well, a two headed beholder is CR15, which is the same EL as two beholders.

My math is different. CR is at least 16 (13 base +2 for 1 additional head, +1 for additional head-based special attack) and maybe even 26 if you count each eye ray as separate SA and count antimagic cone as SA.


Unless, as mentioned, we define creatures such as cephalopods as having "heads". Interestingly, the term cephalopod itself comes from the Greek for "head-feet".

Of course they have heads!
http://doklad-referat.ru/public/page_images/1156/62.jpg
Let see. Head (on picture "голова") is very discernible. It is clearly separated from body.

[hamishspence]

IMO it's more that a Beholder has no discernible torso, than that it has no discernible head - most of it fills the "head" niche - huge mouth, eyes - and a rather small part of the beholder, at the "back" of the sphere, is digestive system etc.

[Saintheart]

That means beholders can quit whenever they want.


Obligatory punchline from the bard: “you should have quit when you were ahead.”

At least Thor won't have any problems with them.

[DarkOne-Rob]

Could this be a temporary thing, as the beholder undergoes fission and two, smaller beholders emerge from the asexual reproduction that takes place? Or is that not a thing...?

[pabelfly]

Could this be a temporary thing, as the beholder undergoes fission and two, smaller beholders emerge from the asexual reproduction that takes place? Or is that not a thing...?

Beholders lay eggs.

[LunaticChaos]

Could this be a temporary thing, as the beholder undergoes fission and two, smaller beholders emerge from the asexual reproduction that takes place? Or is that not a thing...?

Yeah that's not a thing. Beholders are WAY grosser than this.
Though they are asexual.

[loky1109]

Beholders lay eggs.

LoM says different things.

[Brackenlord]

They regurgitate their womb, kinda like and egg sack.

[pabelfly]

LoM says different things.

Guessing it's changed over the editions. What does LoM say?

[DarkOne-Rob]

So that's what one book (a good one) says, but Beholders are some of the weirdest of the weird. Who's to say that some Beholders don't reproduce that way? /shrug

[Tzardok]

Guessing it's changed over the editions. What does LoM say?

Each beholder is born with an organ down in their throat that looks like it's made of bubbles. Once in its life the beholder secludes itself and the organ swills until it hangs from their maw. Then it bites it off. Some time later from each of the bubbles hatches a new beholder. The parent eats the ones whose appearance diverged too much and drives off the rest.

[Segev]

Running with the idea I shared earlier that "multi-headed beholders" could arise from eye stalks developing into mini-beholders-on-a-stalk as the eye turns into an orb with its own stalks and a mouth, that kind of beholder could reproduce by eventually shedding that stalk and the mini-beholder becoming its own creature.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Each beholder is born with an organ down in their throat that looks like it's made of bubbles. Once in its life the beholder secludes itself and the organ swills until it hangs from their maw. Then it bites it off. Some time later from each of the bubbles hatches a new beholder. The parent eats the ones whose appearance diverged too much and drives off the rest.

Good point. If there ever was a two-headed beholder, it would be eaten almost immediately by its parent. A multiheaded beholder can only appear if the beholder is unable to "select" its children, hence probably only if the beholder's lair was invaded by adventurers quickly after laying "eggs". That would make a pretty good one-shot/campaign idea: a town has killed a beholder that threatened it, but some time after they discover that not one but dozens of beholder have taken over the original lair, with a lot of them being deformed, mutated beholders, and the leader being a two-headed siamese beholder who took over due to its higher powers.





Found a two-headed beholder for 5E:

(Apparently, from the I, Tyrant (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/247742/I-Tyrant-7-new-Beholders-for-5th-Edition-DD))

That is much more probable in 5th edition. Indeed, the 5e beholder doesn't reproduce naturally. They are so infused with magic that they can shape reality around them when they sleep. And since they are so self-focused, they almost always dream of themselves, and if the dream becomes realistic enough, they can just materialize another beholder into existence (and often fight it to the death, since it is still another beholder, but sometimes it escapes and that's how 5e beholders reproduce). So, if the beholder has its sleep disturbed by whatever, they can create mutated beholders. So if a beholder dreams of looking into these kinds of twofold mirrors that reflect two copies of you sticked together, it might create these kinds of multiheaded abominations.

[ShurikVch]

Good point. If there ever was a two-headed beholder, it would be eaten almost immediately by its parent. A multiheaded beholder can only appear if the beholder is unable to "select" its children
Well, according to the post of Grumbleputty (https://www.enworld.org/threads/dms-guild-i-tyrant-7-beholders-for-5th-edition.651927/#post-7465987):

Zeggmoth and Idiot Zeggmoth, a beholder fused to his imbecilic offspring
those are the parent and child fused together...

[JoeNapalm]

The argument that the Beholder is a head and not a body because it has head-like features is circular.

It has no discernible head, therefore, yes -- it's body has head-like features. Where the @#$%^ else would they be?

Again, even if you are going to go full Rules Lawyer, you cannot thump the immutable authority of RAW while ignoring that for the rules to specifically exclude "creatures without a discernible head" there must ergo be creatures without a discernible head.

Instead, you have a Venn diagram that has one circle marked "Creatures with a Discernible Head" that completely overlaps a smaller circle of "Creatures without any appendages that happen to also have a mouth and a brain in their central not-body-but-head-because-that-would-mean-I-can't-play-a-two-headed-Beholder"...

The proper solution here is to talk to your DM and say "I want to play a two-headed Beholder"...not shout "To the CLOUD!" to find supporting arguments for an edge case that -- well -- simply because you're asking the question, you know it isn't really a valid argument. This is just generating random internet noise to pretend is a counter-point when/if you get told "No."

Though why a DM would draw the line at "Beholder with two heads" but nowhere before that is kind of beyond me.

"You want to play a what? A Beholder? Is that one of those things with all the eyes, and can shoot all the rays? Like Anti-Magic and Disintegrate? Uh, yeah, sure...I mean, Greg is playing a Paladin, so you should get to play what you want...."

[FULL DISCLOSURE: I would totally play a Beholder.]


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[hamishspence]

The argument that the Beholder is a head and not a body because it has head-like features is circular.

It has no discernible head, therefore, yes -- it's body has head-like features. Where the @#$%^ else would they be?

There's plenty of creatures that don't have head-like features. Oozes spring to mind. Some creatures have "head-like features all over them", like the Gibbering Mouther - but none of those sets of features qualify as "a single, visible head" - because they appear and disappear, and move.

What makes Beholders different from either of these examples, is that most of the beholder is much more like "one single head" - it has a single mouth, a single brain, etc. In short, it has a face - oozes have nothing like that.

[JoeNapalm]

There's plenty of creatures that don't have head-like features. Oozes spring to mind. Some creatures have "head-like features all over them", like the Gibbering Mouther - but none of those sets of features qualify as "a single, visible head" - because they appear and disappear, and move.

What makes Beholders different from either of these examples, is that most of the beholder is much more like "one single head" - it has a single mouth, a single brain, etc. In short, it has a face - oozes have nothing like that.


The qualifier is "discernible head" not "single head."

A Beholder has a mouth and a brain located in it's body because it doesn't have a head.

It lacks, aside from some eyes on stalks, any appendages whatsoever.

As stated above, WTF else would they be? In a jar by the door?

Mirriam-Webster, Cambridge, MacMillian, Britannica, etc...all define a head as separate from a body. Body is defined as the central form a creature, containing its organs, again in all of these.

Arguing that it is a disembodied head would require it to have had a separate body at some point. That is not the case.

It has no appendages. It has no head. It is a spherical creature.

Again, DM can rule it so, but squinting really hard at edge cases won't make it so.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[hamishspence]

Would you apply the same argument to a Vargouille? That is literally a floating head with wings.



It lacks, aside from some eyes on stalks, any appendages whatsoever.


Regular beholders do. The Eye of the Deep, an aquatic beholder variant, has a set of crab claws. Would you allow multiheaded Eye of the Deep while banning multiheaded regular beholder?

[Darg]

Spiders and opiliones have heads even though they are indistinguishable from the body.

[JoeNapalm]

Would you apply the same argument to a Vargouille? That is literally a floating head with wings.




Regular beholders do. The Eye of the Deep, an aquatic beholder variant, has a set of crab claws. Would you allow multiheaded Eye of the Deep while banning multiheaded regular beholder?


A Varguiolle is defined as a head. It had a body, it just tore itself free. If you want to multi-head a Vargouille, I would rule you now have twin Vargouilles that came from same body...or that the creature had to be multiheaded first.

An no, an Eye of the Deep still has no head. Having claws doesn't make it a head. There is no part of it that you can point to and say "That is a discernible head."

Not intending to beat the horse, but that's what I would rule, since you asked.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[JoeNapalm]

Spiders and opiliones have heads even though they are indistinguishable from the body.

This would support the case against Beholders.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Beni-Kujaku]

As stated above, WTF else would they be? In a jar by the door?

Well‚ nowhere (oozes‚ some undead...). Or not all at the same place (gibbering mouther) . A head is "perception organs and mouth roughly at the same place and facing the same way". That is some valid definition‚ and the beholder has that. I probably wouldn't agree that a beholder has a head‚ but it's not as absurd as you seem to think it.

And about the whole " That's where you put the line? The problem is playing a beholder" ‚ well‚ the beholder is a pretty human-like monster by D&D standards. They eat like a human‚ have a society (sorta) ‚ a human-like mindset (from the 1920s) ‚ and use kind of the same magic as a human. When you see that the displacer beast has an LA and was hence supposed to be playable‚ or that you can play a sentient swarm‚ characters that eat rocks‚ or that have no real shape... That really doesn't seem weird to me. The problem with a two-headed beholder is not that it is a PC‚ but if it can exist in the first place by following RAW and lore.



A Varguiolle is defined as a head. It had a body, it just tore itself free.

Ok‚ now‚ I don't understand your point at all. Are you arguing that the Vargouille has a head just because it was initially attached to a body? Even though it now has exactly the same body shape as a beholder‚ which you describe as having none?

[hamishspence]

One way of looking at it - the head is the front and upper half of the beholder, with the mouth and eye and brain, and the body is the back and lower half of the beholder, with the stomach.



Using this interpretation, what would happen if a vargouille "kissed" a beholder and it was unlucky enough to fail the save? After all, the ability doesn't specify that it only works on humanoids, or only works on creatures with hair and ears - it only says what happens to a creature's hair and ears if they have them.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vargouille.htm



Kiss (Su)
A vargouille can kiss a paralyzed target with a successful melee touch attack. An affected opponent must succeed on a DC 15 Fortitude save or begin a terrible transformation that turns the creature into a vargouille within 24 hours (and often much sooner; roll 1d6 separately for each phase of the transformation).

First, over a period of 1d6 hours, all the victim’s hair falls out. Within another 1d6 hours thereafter, the ears grow into leathery wings, tentacles sprout on the chin and scalp, and the teeth become long, pointed fangs. During the next 1d6 hours, the victim takes Intelligence drain and Charisma drain equal to 1 point per hour (to a minimum of 3). The transformation is complete 1d6 hours later, when the head breaks free of the body (which promptly dies) and becomes a vargouille.

I'd rule that leathery wings sprout from where the beholder's earholes are, and then the front half of the beholder tears loose.

[Segev]

The argument that the Beholder is a head and not a body because it has head-like features is circular.

It has no discernible head, therefore, yes -- it's body has head-like features. Where the @#$%^ else would they be?

Again, even if you are going to go full Rules Lawyer, you cannot thump the immutable authority of RAW while ignoring that for the rules to specifically exclude "creatures without a discernible head" there must ergo be creatures without a discernible head.

Instead, you have a Venn diagram that has one circle marked "Creatures with a Discernible Head" that completely overlaps a smaller circle of "Creatures without any appendages that happen to also have a mouth and a brain in their central not-body-but-head-because-that-would-mean-I-can't-play-a-two-headed-Beholder"...

The proper solution here is to talk to your DM and say "I want to play a two-headed Beholder"...not shout "To the CLOUD!" to find supporting arguments for an edge case that -- well -- simply because you're asking the question, you know it isn't really a valid argument. This is just generating random internet noise to pretend is a counter-point when/if you get told "No."

Though why a DM would draw the line at "Beholder with two heads" but nowhere before that is kind of beyond me.

"You want to play a what? A Beholder? Is that one of those things with all the eyes, and can shoot all the rays? Like Anti-Magic and Disintegrate? Uh, yeah, sure...I mean, Greg is playing a Paladin, so you should get to play what you want...."

[FULL DISCLOSURE: I would totally play a Beholder.]


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

Honestly? "A discernable head" in the eye of the beholder. Less jokingly, I mean that seriously: it's an "I know it if I see it" thing.

A classic beholder, like a vargouille, has a "discernable head" and no discernable torso. A quadrone - and indeed, most modrons - lack a discernable head because their whole body is a torso. The weird beholder-kin that has arms and legs lacks a discernable head because its eye and mouth are in its obvious torso.

By and large, I think I would argue that it is "all head" if it lacks limbs or its limbs sprout from the bottom without discernable hips or shoulders and it has a generally round shape, while it "lacks a head" if its limbs sprout from hips or shoulders and its "head parts" like eyes and mouths are embedded in a less-round more torso- or abdomen-like structure.

This is, again, highly subjective. "I know it when I see it." But a Beholder is clearly "all head," while a creature with a face in its chest "has no head."

[hamishspence]

By and large, I think I would argue that it is "all head" if it lacks limbs or its limbs sprout from the bottom without discernable hips or shoulders and it has a generally round shape, while it "lacks a head" if its limbs sprout from hips or shoulders and its "head parts" like eyes and mouths are embedded in a less-round more torso- or abdomen-like structure.

This is, again, highly subjective. "I know it when I see it." But a Beholder is clearly "all head," while a creature with a face in its chest "has no head."
"That's not a head, that's a torso with a face" is a good way to describe certain monsters.

Presumably, all such monsters are immune to the head-chopping ability of Vorpal Swords, as are "all head" monsters, because they have no neck to chop at.

[Darg]

This would support the case against Beholders.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

Indistinguishable =/= not discernable. They mean different things. Spiders and opiliones have heads that are easy to discern, but aren't easily distinguishable from their bodies.

[Thurbane]

So creatures have a kind of Schrödinger thing going on when it comes to "discernible" head.

Discernible is not a feature of the creature, it is wholly dependent on observers. :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

I would suggest that the Tall Mouther from Monsters of Faerun (and Shining South) is another potential candidate for an "all head and no body" aberration.

[ShurikVch]

I would suggest that the Tall Mouther from Monsters of Faerun (and Shining South) is another potential candidate for an "all head and no body" aberration.
Also - natural form of Malaugrym (from the very same book): "In their natural form (almost never seen), malaugryms are spherical creatures about 4 feet in diameter, with three long, powerful tentacles tipped by razor-sharp hooks, and a beaked mouth in the center of their bodies. Three large, round, golden eyes surround the beak."

[loky1109]

Spiders and opiliones have heads even though they are indistinguishable from the body.
No, they haven't. They have cephalothorax.


Presumably, all such monsters are immune to the head-chopping ability of Vorpal Swords, as are "all head" monsters, because they have no neck to chop at.
In 2nd redaction Vorpal Swords can sever not only heads. So I don't see any problem in bisecting beholder in two parts.

[Remuko]

No, they haven't. They have cephalothorax.

the definition implies otherwise.


the fused head and thorax of spiders and other chelicerate arthropods.

emphasis mine. cant have a fused head and thorax if you dont have a head.

[hamishspence]

A beholder could be described as a fused head and torso - but since it has no torso slots according to Lords of Madness,

(it cannot have magic armour made to fit it, but it can have a magic helmet made to fit it, and it can wear other head slot items - it cannot wear a magic shirt, vest, cloak, etc, not even if you reshape it to fit)

then IMO it's reasonable to say that the torso component, not the head component, is the indiscernible bit.


The similar Tall Mouther is described as being "a head with arms" and "having no torso to speak of" in Shining South.

[Bohandas]

I'd say that a beholder has a head and appendages but not a body. If this is about vorpal swords I'd argue that they might detach an eyestalk.

[hamishspence]

That's what I'd go for. I'd also allow multi-headed beholders, as conjoined twins (one beholder embryo, at the single cell stage, divided incompletely then grew. Or somebody did a Template-Granting ritual on one, and it worked).

An octopus could be thought of as having a head, and a neck/waist, and "legs" (8 tentacles) but no proper torso in-between head and legs.

So a vorpal sword used on an octopus would chop head away from all the legs - the "neck/waist" is enough of a "neck" to be targetable.

[loky1109]

emphasis mine. can't have a fused head and thorax if you dont have a head.

It is a question.
Arachnida can because head and thorax were body parts of arachnida's ancestors. There are no real heads and thoraxes now.
You can tell that Lower Mississippi consists of water or Missouri, Upper Mississippi, Ohio and Tennessee but you can't separate these inflows in Lower Mississippi. They don't exist here. Spider heads don't exist, too.


An octopus could be thought of as having a head, and a neck/waist, and "legs" (8 tentacles) but no proper torso in-between head and legs.

So a vorpal sword used on an octopus would chop head away from all the legs - the "neck/waist" is enough of a "neck" to be targetable.

An octopus has body. On opposite to tentacles side of its head.
Look on this picture: http://doklad-referat.ru/public/page_images/1156/62.jpg
This is a squid, not an octopus, but body structure is same.

[hamishspence]

Spider heads don't exist, too.


Creatures with cephalothoraxes still have heads - the two organs being "fused together" doesn't change that they are two organs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalothorax

The "cephalon" is the head, and is still discernible in the example diagram, despite the creature having a "cephalothorax".

Example:

"The fovea is the centre of the cephalothorax and is located behind the head (only in spiders)."

So, a spider has a cephalothorax, and part of the cephalothorax, is the head.




An octopus has body. On opposite to tentacles side of its head.


That's one way to look at it, certainly.

But is it really the body? Or is it the "upper half of the head"?

Legs are normally attached to a body - but the octopus's aren't - they're attached to the "head part" not the proposed "body part". Hence the name "cephalopod" meaning "head-feet".

[mattie_p]

I know how to resolve this. Discussion is one thing, but I think we need empirical evidence. First, we grab a beholder. Tie it up so it's helpless. Then we take a vorpal sword. Do a coup de gras on it. See what happens. Record the findings for posterity.

Wait a minute....

[loky1109]

But is it really the body? Or is it the "upper half of the head"?
Yes, it is really the body.


Legs are normally attached to a body - but the octopus's aren't - they're attached to the "head part" not the proposed "body part". Hence the name "cephalopod" meaning "head-feet".
And nostrils are normally located on nose, but what do we see when are looking on whales?
Cephalopoda and other mollusks have common ancestor and if we look on, for example, gastropoda we can understand how leg migrate to head, because its leg are connected to both head and body, disconnecting from one of them doesn't seem something impossible.
Plus gastropoda's body and cephalopoda's body are obviously homologous and have similar structure.


I know how to resolve this. Discussion is one thing, but I think we need empirical evidence. First, we grab a beholder. Tie it up so it's helpless. Then we take a vorpal sword. Do a coup de gras on it. See what happens. Record the findings for posterity.

Wait a minute....

Yes! Scientific method!

[hamishspence]

Yes, it is really the body.


And nostrils are normally located on nose, but what do we see when are looking on whales?
Cephalopoda and other mollusks have common ancestor and if we look on, for example, gastropoda we can understand how leg migrate to head, because its leg are connected to both head and body, disconnect from one of them doesn't seem something impossible.
Plus gastropoda's body and cephalopoda's body are obviously homologous and have similar structure.



Given the example of the Tall mouther (a creature explicitly referred to as a head, with no torso to speak of, that has arms attached to it), I'd agree that appendages don't need to be attached to bodies - they can be attached directly to heads.

So, would an awakened octopus have a body slot, above the head, on which armour, vests, etc can be worn? A neck slot between the head and the body? And a waist slot between the head and the legs?


And what bearing would the fact that a beholder can wear no "body slot" items, but can wear "head slot" items, have, on determining what body parts a beholder has?

[loky1109]

So, would an awakened octopus have a body slot, above the head, on which armour, vests, etc can be worn? A neck slot between the head and the body? And a waist slot between the head and the legs?

An awakened octopus isn't octopus at all, so we can't talk about it like about real octopus. It can has structure only with similar exterior with octopus. For example it can look like illithid with eight tentacles.

[hamishspence]

An awakened octopus isn't octopus at all, so we can't talk about it like about real octopus. It can has structure only with similar exterior with octopus. For example it can look like illithid with eight tentacles.

No - that would be an anthromorphic octopus (Savage Species) Awakened creatures don't change shape.

You can give magic items to non-awakened animals anyway - magic armour for example, made for a horse (which would be called "barding").

[ShurikVch]

Note: the "Eye Wares: Potent Powers of the Beholders" article (Dragon #313) includes such thing as Orb Armor, which is - yes, an Armor for Beholders; works like any ordinary armor (except the X4 cost) - thus, should occupy a Body slot. Which means - Beholders have a Body slot...


Also, for those who wanted to play a Beholder - one of Dragon magazines (#293) allowed it - but for enormous LA +13 (still lower than for Bleeder Beholder in Dragon Compendium...)

[hamishspence]

Note: the "Eye Wares: Potent Powers of the Beholders" article (Dragon #313) includes such thing as Orb Armor, which is - yes, an Armor for Beholders; works like any ordinary armor (except the X4 cost) - thus, should occupy a Body slot. Which means - Beholders have a Body slot...

To be fair, that was long before Lords of Madness, which ruled that they don't.

[Vaern]

A beholder is a floating head with no neck or torso. As for whether a multi-headed template could be applied and what it might look like, I present an example of a different creature with similar features that can become multi-headed:

https://pm1.narvii.com/6141/b7beec2f8c34cf35dc17df4146bb7a43dccd1df3_hq.jpg

[hamishspence]

Yup. Depending on the beholder, they could attach anywhere that leaves both mouths exposed, I would suggest.

[loky1109]

No - that would be an anthromorphic octopus (Savage Species) Awakened creatures don't change shape.

anthromorphic
don't change shape
...
anthromorphic
don't change shape
...
Hmmm...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Down_the_Rabbit_Hole.png

John Tenniel's depiction of this anthropomorphic rabbit was featured in the first chapter of Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
(Wiki - Anthropomorphism)

anthropomorphisme from Ancient Greek: ανθρωπος — human, μορφή — view, appearance, shape
(Wiki - Anthropomorphism (Russian page))

As I see shape is changed.

Second image in google:
https://image.shutterstock.com/image-vector/grizzly-bear-beer-mug-octopus-600w-1806964147.jpg
I should read more carefully. I'm sorry.

Awakened octopus item slots? They can differ from human slots, but an armor should be in game. As helms and necklaces.

[ShurikVch]

Also, I don't have this document to check, but Triumvirate; a monster of 5th edition (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/329261/Triumvirate-a-monster-of-5th-edition) promises

a powerful, three-headed beholder that DMs can use to horrify their players with

[pabelfly]

Also, I don't have this document to check, but Triumvirate; a monster of 5th edition (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/329261/Triumvirate-a-monster-of-5th-edition) promises

That site looks like a mix of 3rd and 1st-party stuff. I'm not inclined to treat that as any sort of evidence.

[Thurbane]

Awakened octopus item slots? They can differ from human slots, but an armor should be in game. As helms and necklaces.

Here's a bit of a collection of the various body slots printed in 3E, which may serve as something of a guide. I'd assume an Awakened Octopus may have similar slots to a Grell: Magic Item Slots For Various Creatures (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?585673)