Feat: Assume Supernatural Ability (SS) and the Beholder

[Lorillomar]

Hello all,

Creating a 15th level Sorcerer and I plan on having him take the Assume Supernatural Ability feat out of Savage Species. We are already assuming (although the feat description does not explicitly state) that I must pick only one creature that I can polymorph into and then pick only one supernatural ability that that one creature has available to it.

Fine.

But the entry for the Beholder states one entry for all eye rays and calls it "Eye Rays (Su)". Show of hands for who here thinks that means that one application of the feat allows the person who polymorphs into the beholder to use all 10 of its eye rays normally, please.

Thanks!

 

[AuraSeer]

Show of hands for who here thinks that means that one application of the feat allows the person who polymorphs into the beholder to use all 10 of its eye rays normally, please.

I'd say no. They are ten separate abilities, grouped under one subheading to avoid excessively duplicating text.

Even granting one of its eye rays is tremendously powerful. Give me an at-will disintegrate for the price of one feat, and I'll be a very happy camper.

 

[3d6]

It's one supernatural abilty that happens to do multiple things; I would say that you get all 10 eye rays.

I wouldn't call it "normally," though. That -2 penalty to all rolls is rather annoying, as the DC 19 Will save required to use the ability.

 

[Lorillomar]

Re: Re: Feat: Assume Supernatural Ability (SS) and the Beholder

I'd say no. They are ten separate abilities, grouped under one subheading to avoid excessively duplicating text.

Even granting one of its eye rays is tremendously powerful. Give me an at-will disintegrate for the price of one feat, and I'll be a very happy camper.

OK, but you would agree that it is your interpretation that all 10 rays are only grouped together to avoid excessively duplicating text, right? For if that were so, it would be done that way for all other monsters that have multiple abilities that are of the same type, right? Say, for instance, the Balor, which uses two entries for Detect Magic and See Invisibility, even though they are both Supernatural effects with the same caster level. If the mechanic held true, the entry would look something like this:

Superior Senses (Su): the Balor can continuously:
Detect Magic
and
See Invisibility
as the spell cast by a 20th level Sorcerer.


As for your second point, it is more than a single feat that is involved. First you must be able to assume the form of the Beholder, which means you are least a 11th level Sorcerer or Wizard with access to Polymorph Self. Second, you take a -2 penalty to attack rolls and other things, which means you are less likely to hit with your eye beam in the first place. Lastly, you have to make do without many if not all of your enhancements due to magic items, since they meld into your new form for the duration of the spell.

I am not focusing on the power level of the feat--we are taking it as written for the purposes of this (informal) poll.

But I do appreciate your viewpoint. Please keep them coming!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Has anyone used this feat? Is it balanced?

 

[AuraSeer]

Re: Re: Re: Feat: Assume Supernatural Ability (SS) and the Beholder

OK, but you would agree that it is your interpretation that all 10 rays are only grouped together to avoid excessively duplicating text, right?

No, I didn't say "only." If you want other reasons, I'd point out that the rays are strongly thematically linked. It's also because there are a lot of them; reading ten near-identical entries would be irritating, and that block of repeating text would make it difficult to pick out the differences between each ray.

The balor entry you mention is hardly equivalent. Those are two very short entries, with no special rules at all. Duplicating a single line of text once is not a significant waste of space, where duplicating a paragraph 9 times would be.

Note that for simple abilities, adding a subheading would actually make them harder to read. The balor entry, like most others, is written with the important items are the beginning and end of the line. It's easier to spot them when you're skimming, or looking something up during combat. Moving the actual power names would decrease readability.

Compare this:
"Detect Magic (Su): blah bublah blablah, bublahblah blah blublah 20th-level sorcerer."
to this:
"Blahblah blah(Su): blahblah blah bu blahblah, bublahblah detect magic blublah blahbablah, 20th-level sorcerer."

(The beholder's different eye rays maintain readability because they're split into separate paragraphs.)

 

[Lorillomar]

Does the fact that all 10 can be used in the same round as one standard action...

...make a difference?

Unless they were meant to be treated as a single ability, that would violate the rule-of-thumb "one Supernatural ability per round".

 

[AuraSeer]

Does the fact that all 10 can be used in the same round as one standard action make a difference?

Unless they were meant to be treated as a single ability, that would violate the rule-of-thumb "one Supernatural ability per round".

I don't see why that would make any difference.

For one thing, I can't find any such rule limiting the use of (Su) abilities. The ones that take a standard action to activate can only be used one at a time, but that's a limitation on number of actions, not ability types. More importantly, anything stated in the monster description specifically overrides general rules for that instance. (If an ettin suffers no penalties for TWF, that implies nothing about the TWF rules in general.)

 

[Camarath]

We are already assuming (although the feat description does not explicitly state) that I must pick only one creature that I can polymorph into and then pick only one supernatural ability that that one creature has available to it.

Quote from Assume Supernatural Ability (first sentance in the benefit)
"You learn to use a single supernatural ability of another kind of creature while assuming it's form through polymorph self or a similar effect."

This seems to state rather clearly what you asserted.

 

[Lorillomar]

OK, so we have one for, one against, and...

...one vote for "no confidence". Anyone else care to weigh in? I am fairly sure my DM will laugh at me (and rightly so) unless I have more than an "n" of 3 in my sample group.


Thanks everyone!