James McMurray said:
It doesn't say "only three uses per day of the metamorphic ablity" it says "of the supernatural ability".
Unless we have different editions of the Expanded Psionics Handbook I respectfully suggest you check again. According to my copy, it does indeed say "only three uses per day of the metamorphic ability."
The trouble comes from the definition of 'metamorphic ability.'
Since 'metamorphic ability' is an undefined game term, I have interpreted it to mean 'the metamorphic transfer feat.'
the ExPsiHB said:
Metamorphic Transfer [Psionic]
You gain a supernatural ability of a metamorphed form.
Prerequisite: Wis 13, Manifester level 5th.
Benefit: Each time you change your form, such as through the metamorphasis power, you gain one of the new form's supernatural abilities, if it has any.
You gain only three uses of the metamorphic ability(1) per day, even if the creature into which you metamorph has a higher limit on uses. For instance, if you gain a dragon's breath weapon, you can use that ability(2) only three times before losing access to the ability (3)for they day. (You are still subject to the other restrictions on the use of the ability. For example, after you use a dragon's breath weapon, you can't use it again for 1d4 rounds.)
(I have added notations for ease of reference)
If we assume 'metamorphic ability'
(1) means 'supernatural ability,' and 'ability'
(2) refers to the specific example of the dragon's breath (which has unlimited uses) but you can only use any dragon's breath gained through the feat three times per day. In the case of 'ability'
(3) it specifically refers directly back to the example of the dragon's breath
gained through the metamorphic transfer feat. Thus 'ability'
(3) is twice a supernatural ability (granted by a psionic feat, which makes it supernatural, and is replicating a supernatural ability).
I put forward that metamorphic ability
(1) is supposed to be 'metamorphic transfer' and refer to the feat. It could be a writing error, or poor editing, or a change of the feat name during production of the book, or a simple oversight. Or perhaps the author thought his reference was so obvious he didn't need to be repetetive to be clear.
There is proof for neither assumption. Lambasting me for my position without offering refuting evidence is merely an
ad hominem attach of which Eric's grandmother wouldn't approve.
If there's further proof what 'metamorphic ability' is supposed to mean, then by all means please provide it.

Greg