Villainous Competition XX​III: Two Heads Are Better Than One

[WhamBamSam]

Didn't had the time to make an entry but I'll post my base idea cause it just seems so silly/wrong somehow^^:

I was thinking about a Double-headed Beholder Mage^^ (maybe with early entry into BM). Goes into the epic lvls (unless early entry cheese) and is a beast imho.
The big deals are that after sacrificing one of your central eyes, you still got the other.
Further you have 2x10 eye rays. This makes the 10th lvl of beholder mage extremely powerful. From BM 1-9 you sacrifice one eye ray each lvl to get a spell-stalk for the new spell lvl (1-9). At lvl 10 BM all your remaining eye rays turn into spell-stalks, which means you can designate the lvls for your remaining 11 eye rays..^^ (wanna cast 12 lvl-9 spells /round???)

If you want to go silly, you could give him a monks tattoo to enhance his unarmed combat with Arcane Hands. Cause since your spellcasting is always a free action with your (20!) spell-stalks, you can spend your actions into Full-Attacks. A bit weak due to low Str score for Arcane Hands, but extra attacks are still extra attacks. Add multiattack, twf feats and combat reflexes for even more attacks.

Otherwise just stick to some metamagic feats or something else what fits your caster role more.

The CR adjustment for a Multi-headed Beholder could be pretty brutal, depending on whether the eye rays count as distinct head based special attacks.

[Gruftzwerg]

Unfortunately, a beholder does not have a head, which most of the templates that increase a creature's number of heads require in the first place. It only has a body that looks like a head. So what you're describing would not work, at least in the sense of doing what you want it to.

Hm arguable imho but you have a good point. Imho we work with the regular definition of "head". And while the beholder rule text always refers to his "body" and not "head", it still looks like a head as you said. So you could say his body counts as head imho.

I was already picturing him as some kind of Rayman due to the Arcane Hands. Would have made a really silly appearance.

maybe it was good that I didn't invested/wasted the time with the build since it's questionable :p

[Technetium43]

Hm arguable imho but you have a good point. Imho we work with the regular definition of "head". And while a beholder rule text always refers to his "body" and not "head", it still looks like a head as you said. So you could say it body counts as head imho.

I was already picturing him as some kind of Rayman due to the Arcane Hands. Would have made a really silly appearance.

maybe it was good that I didn't invested/wasted the time with the build since it's questionable :p

Well, at least one good thing has come of this, I really want to make an optimized beholder mage exclusively built towards making the nastiest bite attacks possible, and make Pac-Man.

[NontheistCleric]

The CR adjustment for a Multi-headed Beholder could be pretty brutal, depending on whether the eye rays count as distinct head based special attacks.

Again, I feel the need to point out that a beholder does not even qualify for Multi-headed.

It's also not 'questionable' whether the body counts as a head simply because it looks like one. It simply doesn't. Quite apart from the fact that the beholder's body is explicitly described as a body, a head is something that is discernibly separate from the rest of the body. That is not something that a beholder has.

[Gruftzwerg]

The CR adjustment for a Multi-headed Beholder could be pretty brutal, depending on whether the eye rays count as distinct head based special attacks.

That wouldn't have been a problem. The eye rays are a single ability (bold written), while the single eye ray abilities are just part of that ability. So it should count as single special head-related ability and thus would have been a +3CR for double headed (+2 base +1 for the eye rays).

Beholder CR 13 + 3 = CR 16 without any BM lvls.

[Gruftzwerg]

Again, I feel the need to point out that a beholder does not even qualify for Multi-headed.

It's also not 'questionable' whether the body counts as a head simply because it looks like one. It simply doesn't. Quite apart from the fact that the beholder's body is explicitly described as a body, a head is something that is discernibly separate from the rest of the body. That is not something that a beholder has.

Would you say the same thing to a flying skull I would like to know?

Cause as said, Heads aren't really defined in terms of 3.5 .

And on such abstract creatures as beholders it's hard to tell wether or not its body counts as head. Imho DM decision, and since this is about NPC/enemies, WE ARE THE DM (interpret this as you like^^).

[NontheistCleric]

Would you say the same thing to a flying skull I would like to know?

Cause as said, Heads aren't really defined in terms of 3.5 .

And on such abstract creatures as beholders it's hard to tell wether or not its body counts as head. Imho DM decision, and since this is about NPC/enemies, WE ARE THE DM (interpret this as you like^^).

Well, at least for the purposes of the Multi-headed template, a beholder does not count since it does not have a 'discernible head'. In the case of a flying skull, it would probably count if the skull had at least at some point served as a head for a more complete being. If not, although it may look like a head, it isn't really. Remember that even if there is no rules definition (although I haven't looked into it yet so there may be some rules that support this), the meaning of 'head' in English still matters. And if we go by that, a beholder doesn't have a head either.

True, a DM might decide to let a beholder count as having a head if they wanted to. But that would probably go into the realm of DM fiat. Also, in this competition it's not really the competitors that are the DMs but rather the judges, since if they feel something is illegal they will penalize it.

[Technetium43]

And this entire discussion is why I went with something unambiguous.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho the question is, what is a "discernible head"?

a) Does it needs to be attached to a body to be a head?
or
b) Does just having facial features (eyes, mouth ..) already qualify for being a head?

I would go for "b". But as said, I can see other DMs or judges as you deciding the other way.


edit: odd example..
how about a squid. It's body is normally referred to as "head". Exchange the body with the sphere of a beholder and the tentacles with the eye rays. Maybe you are fine with this analogy

[Thurbane]

The ruling could go either way on a Beholder being eligible for Multi-headed, but if I had to cast a vote, I think I'd have to go with the "no discernible head" POV.

[NontheistCleric]

Imho the question is, what is a "discernible head"?

a) Does it needs to be attached to a body to be a head?
or
b) Does just having facial features (eyes, mouth ..) already qualify for being a head?

I would go for "b". But as said, I can see other DMs or judges as you deciding the other way.

A gibbering mouther fits your criteria for being a head. Yet, no other sane person I know would call it a head.

how about a squid. It's body is normally referred to as "head". Exchange the body with the sphere of a beholder and the tentacles with the eye rays. Maybe you are fine with this analogy

But you see, even you have put the word 'head' in inverted commas. That shows that despite all your claims, you know that it is not really a head. It is a body. That's all there is to it.

[Gruftzwerg]

But you see, even you have put the word 'head' in inverted commas. That shows that despite all your claims, you know that it is not really a head. It is a body. That's all there is to it.

No that was not my intention with the inverted commas.
Try to google for squid head recipe and see that I know that it is a head in common interpretation. I can confirm this for two other languages (German + Turkish).

How is your position now?

[ben-zayb]

I was surprised to not see a Skull Lord, which would have been the basis for my entry. But a good crop all around. Not terribly surprise to see multiple Dvati entries, but multiple Monsters of Legend is fairly interesting. I do love the Monster of Legend template (I used it in the Master of the Frozen Tundra round for Krampus), I just wish it wasn't so restrictive on which creature types can use it.

I thought this was a good round to experiment on the Skull Lord Serpentir, but RL just wouldn't allow me to.

[NontheistCleric]

No that was not my intention with the inverted commas.
Try to google for squid head recipe and see that I know that it is a head in common interpretation. I can confirm this for two other languages (German + Turkish).

How is your position now?

Whatever the squid's body may be known as colloquially does not make it that thing. Calling it a head does not change the fact that by all traditional systems of classifying body parts, it is in fact a body and the head is actually the small part that has all the tentacles attached to it.

[ArendK]

I had a Multiheaded Pyro Roc of Legend that was the incarnation of a volcano. I used Metabreath to turn its heads into massive firestorms. But I couldn't find an appropriate deity for it.

Kossuth (FR), the Fury (I'm a little rusty on Eberron deities), Ymeri (Golarion)

That was one concept I toyed around with too when I was thinking about my own design. Well, using lightning instead of fire, but still same general concept.

[NontheistCleric]

Ymeri (Golarion)

Not for this competition, though.

[ArendK]

In my limited analysis of the builds (I'm at work, and not fully up to speed with some of the design options in play like the binders without books in front of me); here's my unofficial judging (not off scores or overall power, just flavor, concept, and basic design) based off my favorites.

The Unkindness of Hextor (honestly, that's frigging cool hand down); I'm hijacking this concept at some point for my campaign in Pathfinder. I don't know for what exactly, but it will be glorious.
The Fleischriver Horror- When I think of ungodly terrors, I don't think of Giants with 10 heads. I do now.
Boney Bonnie- I loved the sheer power and the fluff of this thing. Not the most dangerous of the bunch, but not every foe has to be the master manipulator/world ending monstrosity we love. Sometimes we just need a Big Scary Monster that will eat you. And the person next to you. And the guy behind him. And that guy 30 feet behind you wiggling his fingers.
Taman and Thoron- 1 Gish is agitating. 2 Gishes even more so. WONDERFUL!
Chuck and Rufus-I was guilty of just glancing over the concept before going "meh!" thinking it was just going to be a gish/initiator build. Then I realized I was just being a douche. I was about in tears at work laughing about this thing. I loved it; not the most practical, but awesome fluff and creativity.
Masa and Mune- I like the fluff and concept; not knowing all the rules behind symbiotic and the PLETHORA of classes used makes my brain hurt.
Asperantos- I like the concept. Only two knocks I really have against it is the binder (not really a knock, just unfamiliarity so I can't judge it fairly) and 80% of the CR comes from the race.

[shaikujin]

Regarding the Beholder head debate, I'd rule that it has a head and qualifies for multi-headed.

I'm basing this on the rules for a Beholder's magic item slots.
In Lord of Madness pg 45, The Beholder has a slot for magic hats/helmets, but no slot for magical suits of armor/shirts.

[NontheistCleric]

Regarding the Beholder head debate, I'd rule that it has a head and qualifies for multi-headed.

I'm basing this on the rules for a Beholder's magic item slots.
In Lord of Madness pg 45, The Beholder has a slot for magic hats/helmets, but no slot for magical suits of armor/shirts.

The rules on what magic items aberrations can wear are based solely on whether their bodies can accommodate them, not whether they possess a direct analogue to the body part the magic item would be worn on by a human. This is quite evident from the book itself; to take tsochari as an example, one would not say that they must possess hands and fingers because they can wear rings.

[Blue Jay]

A gibbering mouther fits your criteria for being a head. Yet, no other sane person I know would call it a head.

A gibbering mouther is also specifically called out as being Amorphous, meaning it lacks discernible anatomy; so I think the "specific trumps general" rule undermines that example.

I feel like any attempt to rigidly define what counts as a "discernible head" is overly pedantic and misses the point of the template. To me, a multi-headed beholder makes sense: I can easily imagine what it looks like and what the template would do for it, so I wouldn't have a problem with it. I might rule that it wouldn't get extra eyestalks, though: just an extra bite and anti-magic eye.

---

One of the most interesting things about this competition was that I interpreted it very narrowly. In my mind, a "proper" entry was a hydra or amphisbaena or Multi-Headed creature. Swarms and Dvati and symbionts didn't even cross my mind. I'm always too self-conscious to enter competitions like this, but my first thought was to build a half-dragon fire elemental with the Multi-Headed template (I think the link to the "Burn Baby Burn" competition caught my eye a little, as something I wish I hadn't missed).

Someday I might work up the courage to enter a competition like this.

[ArendK]

One of the most interesting things about this competition was that I interpreted it very narrowly. In my mind, a "proper" entry was a hydra or amphisbaena or Multi-Headed creature. Swarms and Dvati and symbionts didn't even cross my mind. I'm always too self-conscious to enter competitions like this, but my first thought was to build a half-dragon fire elemental with the Multi-Headed template (I think the link to the "Burn Baby Burn" competition caught my eye a little, as something I wish I hadn't missed).

Someday I might work up the courage to enter a competition like this.

That's deliciously evil.

[NontheistCleric]

I feel like any attempt to rigidly define what counts as a "discernible head" is overly pedantic and misses the point of the template. To me, a multi-headed beholder makes sense: I can easily imagine what it looks like and what the template would do for it, so I wouldn't have a problem with it. I might rule that it wouldn't get extra eyestalks, though: just an extra bite and anti-magic eye.

If you run the kind of game where rprerequisites and requirements take a back seat to what you feel is interesting and fun, that's fine. Feel free to fiat to whatever you like in your own game.

However, we are talking about this beholder head issue in the context of a competition that is built on following the rules strictly (at least in theory). Defining what the rules of a particular template mean is a valid discussion, because it helps those who participate in the competition follow the rules. After all, it's not like this is the first time Multiheaded has come up in this competition, and it's unlikely to be the last.

[Gruftzwerg]

If you run the kind of game where rprerequisites and requirements take a back seat to what you feel is interesting and fun, that's fine. Feel free to fiat to whatever you like in your own game.

However, we are talking about this beholder head issue in the context of a competition that is built on following the rules strictly (at least in theory). Defining what the rules of a particular template mean is a valid discussion, because it helps those who participate in the competition follow the rules. After all, it's not like this is the first time Multiheaded has come up in this competition, and it's unlikely to be the last.

k, I'll give it another try than^^

here is what Wikipedia tells us about "heads":

The head is the part of an animal that usually includes the brain, eyes, ears, nose, and mouth.

There is no mention that the head needs to be attached to a body/torso in that definition. Imho this indicated that there are heads where this ain't the chase, like with squids and beholders.

As further evidence that it ain't just colloquially a head, have a look at wikipedia about Squid#Heads

As far as I see it, you just need facial features + a brain to count as head. And beholders would qualify into this definition in the same way as squids do.

[Thurbane]

I think it's fair to say, like large chunks of 3E, the designers could have worded the template a little better.

There's a decent case to be made either way for a Beholder, IMHO. Like I said earlier, I'd probably rule against it in my games.

But like most RAW/RAI/RAMS debates, or internet debates in general, most people are going to walk away believing exactly what they did at the start of the debate.

If it were allowed, I imagine it's body configuration would look something like this:

[Blue Jay]

If you run the kind of game where rprerequisites and requirements take a back seat to what you feel is interesting and fun, that's fine. Feel free to fiat to whatever you like in your own game.

However, we are talking about this beholder head issue in the context of a competition that is built on following the rules strictly (at least in theory). Defining what the rules of a particular template mean is a valid discussion, because it helps those who participate in the competition follow the rules. After all, it's not like this is the first time Multiheaded has come up in this competition, and it's unlikely to be the last.

My position is that this isn't a rules issue at all, and shouldn't be treated like one. I feel like this discussion about multi-headed beholders is trying to define something that the rules don't define. That's not "following the rules strictly": that's making new rules. The bottom line is that there are no clearly-defined criteria for deciding what does and does not count as a "discernible head," especially when it comes to creatures with highly abnormal body plans. So, a strict reading of the prereq would conclude that the prereq is open to interpretation in some situations; and that's how it should be incorporated into a contest like this.

But, maybe now I'm just being too big for my "dwarf in the playground" breeches.

[Gruftzwerg]

If it were allowed, I imagine it's body configuration would look something like this:

where would you place the central eyes? opposite sides or same side?^^

I would be for the same side, than go BM and fluff it into a pirate beholder *arrrrgh*

[Thurbane]

This might be a better image to explain what I was thinking:

[NontheistCleric]

My position is that this isn't a rules issue at all, and shouldn't be treated like one. I feel like this discussion about multi-headed beholders is trying to define something that the rules don't define. That's not "following the rules strictly": that's making new rules. The bottom line is that there are no clearly-defined criteria for deciding what does and does not count as a "discernible head," especially when it comes to creatures with highly abnormal body plans. So, a strict reading of the prereq would conclude that the prereq is open to interpretation in some situations; and that's how it should be incorporated into a contest like this.

But, maybe now I'm just being too big for my "dwarf in the playground" breeches.

It is following the rules strictly. What the rule says is that a creature must have a discernible head to qualify for the template. A beholder does not have a discernible head. It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter how abnormal a creature's body plan is, the only issue is whether or not it has a head.

And I don't see how your forum rank should come into this at all. I'm a Halfling, after all.

k, I'll give it another try than^^

here is what Wikipedia tells us about "heads":

If you go further into the Wikipedia article about heads, though, (not that Wikipedia is the most reliable source in the first place) you will see that it describes heads as being differentiated from a creature's main body. This is not something a beholder has. The introductory sentence only says that because it is assuming you are looking at heads in the context of real-world animals, and there is no example of an animal being a disembodied head in real life.

There is no mention that the head needs to be attached to a body/torso in that definition. Imho this indicated that there are heads where this ain't the chase, like with squids and beholders.

As further evidence that it ain't just colloquially a head, have a look at wikipedia about Squid#Heads

As far as I see it, you just need facial features + a brain to count as head. And beholders would qualify into this definition in the same way as squids do.

Okay, you clearly have a fundamentally incorrect conception of squid anatomy. Let me tell you now, the head is that little part up front with the tentacles and the beak and eyes. It is an appendage distinct from the body, which is the large fleshy bit behind it, also known as the mantle. A squid is not just a huge head, that is simply wrong.

[Gruftzwerg]

If you go further into the Wikipedia article about heads, though, (not that Wikipedia is the most reliable source in the first place) you will see that it describes heads as being differentiated from a creature's main body. This is not something a beholder has. The introductory sentence only says that because it is assuming you are looking at heads in the context of real-world animals, and there is no example of an animal being a disembodied head in real life.

where do you got that from? could you quote/link it pls?

all I've found so far is this:

A head is the part of an organism which usually includes the eyes, ears, nose and mouth, each of which aid in various sensory functions such as sight, hearing, smell, and taste, respectively. Some very simple animals may not have a head, but many bilaterally symmetric forms do. Heads develop in animals by an evolutionary trend known as cephalization. In bilaterally symmetrical animals, nervous tissues concentrate at the anterior region, forming structures responsible for information processing. Through biological evolution, sense organs and feeding structures also concentrate into the anterior region; these collectively form the head.

As far as I see it, beholder would qualify for this definition. I can't seem to find any part that would demand that heads "need to be differentiated from the creatures main body". If you can point me to the text where this requirement stands, I would be happy.

[NontheistCleric]

As far as I see it, beholder would qualify for this definition. I can't seem to find any part that would demand that heads "need to be differentiated from the creatures main body". If you can point me to the text where this requirement stands, I would be happy.

The keyword is 'cephalization'. It has its own article, which is worth checking out. Basically, an organism evolves a head through cephalization, which is the concentration of of nervous tissue (and also things such as mouths and sense organs) at one end of the organism. This then becomes known as the head. Even though a beholder may resemble a head, it does not have these things concentrated in any particular part of its body (it has eyes everywhere, tympanic membranes distributed randomly, etc.). Therefore it cannot be said to itself have a head.

Official dictionary definitions also support this, as seen below.

Merriam-Webster: 'the upper or anterior division of the animal body that contains the brain, the chief sense organs, and the mouth'

Here it is clearly stated that the head is divided from the rest of the body.

Oxford: 'The upper part of the human body, or the front or upper part of the body of an animal, typically separated from the rest of the body by a neck, and containing the brain, mouth, and sense organs'

And again here.