Tenser's Transformation - is it really a viable tactic?

[User3]

Seems that on a lot of the Wizards' boards, people talk about the TT spell as if you can really put an ass kicking on people with this magic.

For a 6th level spell, should a wiz or a sorceror actually ever use this spell? or specialize in it?

It just looks ... well, not weak ... but dangerous for an arcanist to be using effectively. i just can't see it being prepped as a daily spell. Although as a special situation spell, i guess it could have merit.

[Josh_Kablack]

It's actually pretty good, but there are only two tactics for it.

1. After the wizard has exhausted all other viable combat/escape spells.

2. Share Spells to cast it on your familiar.

[dbb]

Wow, 3.5 Transformation is totally nerfed. 3.0 Transformation was rocktastic if you could slip it into a Ring of Spell Storing and give it to one of your more combat-oriented buddies.

The 3.5 version is pretty sucky. I might keep it around and have a reach weapon on hand if I knew I was going to be fighting a lot of things with SR, but you're probably still better off casting Summon Monster VI and pulling down something like a Fiendish Rhinoceros than you are casting Tenser's and whaling away, unless you're the EK/SS type of wizard and are specifically built to have "get into combat and whale away" as something you do.

--d.

[Username17]

You left one out:

3. Epic Play. Your BAB now equals your character level (no cap), and your Epic Attack Bonus doesn't go anywhere. So at 30th level you get a big pile of attack bonus that otherwise can't come from anywhere.

Except you know, Divine Power, which is lower level and better.

-Username17

[User3]

No, it's horrible.

In effect, you're giving up your spellcasting ability–and, in particular, your best chance of escaping any given fight–to become a meleer that is very significantly worse than any real meleer (or, for that matter, any meleer you could simply conjure with Summon Monster).

The only real use I can see for it is when the following conditions are met: a) there are no fighter-types in your party, b) something is immune to your magic, and c) you *really* need to defeat that something in battle. And even then, it's often superior to either summon beasties or to conjure a stone wall above it.

[User3]

Transformation....Your base attack bonus equals your character level (which may give you multiple attacks).

Divine Power....Your base attack bonus becomes equal to your character level (which may give you additional attacks)

I can't find the paragraph where it tells the mechanics for gaining extra attacks for a high BAB. Here's the closest thing I can find:

Base Attack Bonus: Add the base attack bonuses acquired for each class to get the character’s base attack bonus. A resulting value of +6 or higher provides the character with multiple attacks.

Does this mean that an epic level wizard could gain attacks above and beyond the normal 4 attack maximum by using Tenser's Transformation?

[User3]

No, there's a rule in the Epic Level Handbook (and corresponding SRD) that caps attacks derived from BAB at four.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1125284467[/unixtime]] conjure a stone wall above it.

Explain to me how that's a viable tactic?

[erik]

It isn't. Stone walls don't topple, so at worst you can give the mob a reflex save or be trapped under a stone cover. Could have a wall of iron to tip, but that's an awfully complicated and wasteful way to be ineffective.

I've been pondering the usefulness of an elemental bonded (from miniatures handbook) with tenser's transformation (among other buffs) on its elder elemental companion. There is far too much sucking on the path to this 16th level ploy, but I was thinking of a BBEG who stayed invisible and just buffed his super elemental.
... I just read the new 3.5 transformation. Damn that sucks. Screw that, I'd just throw on bull's strength and enlarge person on the elder elemental, unless I wanted it to wield a frickin huge magic greatsword or somesuch.

Hrm, with Tenser's the BAB won't get any higher than the +18 the elder elemental already has, but getting 4 attacks with a gargantuan greatsword with 6d6+21 damage just from the strength, isn't horribly shabby I suppose once it applies power attack.

However I doubt if a level 6 spell is worth avoiding the -4 attack penalty for not being proficient with a weapon. Surely there is a lower level 3.5 spell that does the job.

[Username17]

On Wall of Stone: The 3rd edition version is quite unambiguous in its ability to be created in "almost any shape", including "to trap mobile opponents within or under a wall of stone". Therefore, you can create it as a stone pillary that traps mobile creatures within it. This is extremely effective, as it doubles as both splitting the enemy and causing helplessness to some of them.

The 3.5 version... I have no idea what it is supposed to be able to do. It still has the wording that the 3rd edition version has that allows you to do that, but now it also has wording that restricts you from putting it into squares. That's so metagame and bizzare that I've never seen anyone ever actually enforce that, so your games will probably vary.

Wall of Stone is one of many spells that simply has contradictory wording in its 3.5 version. Like how 3.5 Polymorph retains the wording that poison turns into regular saliva as soon as it leaves your body, but now also says specifically that you gain the poison ability. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, and neither does anyone else.

---

On your Elder Elemental: the BAB will actually go to +24, though it will still only get 4 attacks (3.5 DMG, page 207).

Of course, you can get a bigger benefit from Divine Power, which is a lower level spell and therefore easier to cheese into lasting all day and fit into a ring of spellstoring.

As to 3.5 spells that grant proficiency in a weapon at lower than 6th, I suggest Master's Touch from Complete Adventurer. It takes a swift action to cast, lasts for 1 min/level, gives you proficiency with any single item you are touching, and is first level.

-Username17

[User3]

1125289234[/unixtime]]No, there's a rule in the Epic Level Handbook (and corresponding SRD) that caps attacks derived from BAB at four.

Any idea where that is specifically? The closest I can find is

Epic Attack Bonus: Similarly, the character’s base attack bonus does not increase after character level reaches 20th. However, the character does receive a cumulative +1 epic bonus on all attacks at every odd-numbered level beyond 20th, as shown on Table: Epic Save and Epic Attack Bonuses. Any time a feat, prestige class, or other rule refers to your base attack bonus, use the sum of your base attack bonus and epic attack bonus.

which only states that you simply cease to gain BAB and instead gain EAB. In fact, other than that multiclass rule and class tables, I can't find anything that states how you gain multiple attacks. The "other rule" bit in the rule above might apply, but I can't find any "other rule" to apply it to!

[Kirin_Corrigan]

Any idea where that is specifically?

It's on page 207 of the 3.5 DMG as Frank mentioned above: "Behind the curtain: a limit on attacks and saves".

[Absentminded_Wizard]

It's also in the non-sidebar rules, albeit somewhat elliptically.

Any time a feat, prestige class, or other rule refers to your base attack bonus (except for gaining additional attacks), use the sum of your base attack bonus and epic attack bonus.

[Kirin_Corrigan]

It's also in the non-sidebar rules, albeit somewhat elliptically.

Any time a feat, prestige class, or other rule refers to your base attack bonus (except for gaining additional attacks), use the sum of your base attack bonus and epic attack bonus.

The part you quoted refers to something slightly different: it clarifies that your single classed Epic Wizard and Epic Rogue wil only ever get 2 attacks and 3 attacks respectively, even if they reached level 100.

In other words, you're stuck with whichever number of iterative attacks you had at level 20. Forever.

[power_word_wedgie]

Well, the only experience that I had with this spell was when we had a DM that had us come up with 12th level characters. One of the other players decided it would be cool to have a wizard that used Tensor's Transformation. I played a cleric and another guy played another wizard. I had the travel domain, cast Find the Path (aka Ruin the Adventure), and we found the dragon that we were searching for. Long story short, the dragon served over the Tensor Transformation wizard his own ass (let me know if such language is verbotten - I'm new here) on a platter. (Well, we all evenually got killed, but the transformed wizard was the quickest one there - when the DM said that we were fighting a CR 12 dragon, I almost impaled his small intestines with my size 10.5 shoe via his backside ...)

Thus, needless to say, when cast solely on the wizard, it's an craptacular spell IMHO.

[fbmf]

Hello, PWW!

Anything we don't approve of will be filtered out by the robocensors, so no worries. You may want to check in at the Welcome thread in MPSIMS.

Game On,
fbmf

[power_word_wedgie]

Now, if I could get to robocensors to help me masterbate, I'd never leave home.

Seriously, thanks for the heads up and I won't keep posting off-topic.

edit: Wow! It got though! Cool!

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Dude, it's spelled MastUrbate.

Geez, you think an important word like that would be easy to remember.

[power_word_wedgie]

Dude, give me a break. I'm typing with one hand.

Oh, get back on topic? Oh, ok. I guess my follow-up question is, "What would need to be done to Tensor's Transformation to make it worth being cast onto a wizard witout having to resort t share spell needs? Would you do it or would you feel that it is stepping on the toes (per se) of the fighters or the charged-up cleric?"

[Username17]

Stat replacement is unmanageable in a game like D&D. The TT concept is not salvageable, and I don't understand why it's part of the core rules. If the Tenser's hadn't made the 3e cut, would anyone have noticed or cared?

Of the big broken crazy stuff in the core rules:

Simulacrum
Magic Jar
Polymorph
Awaken
Planar Binding
Divine Power

every single one of them involves stat replacement or character duplication or both.

-Username17

[power_word_wedgie]

Really, I can't argue against that. I guess you could throw in there Wildshape as well. Just out of curiousity, would you thow in there Bull's Strength, Owl's Wisdom, Eagle's Splendor, etc? (ie Other stat boosting spells)

[dbb]

Wildshape is usually viewed as a subset of Polymorph, since they use the same rules and all.

I, at least, don't consider stat boosting anywhere near the brokenness of the other stuff, as long as it can be applied to whoever wants it -- this is a team game, after all, and adding or substracting to or from stats maintains the relative worth of having them (as long as the additions or subtractions are constant.

That's kind of wordy, so what I'm getting at is this: it's not a problem if you have a spell that gives a Wizard, with a base Strength of 8, a Strength of 18, as long as that spell also gives a Fighter, with a base Strength of 18, the same relative increase. It's only a problem if you have a spell that gives the Wizard and the Fighter a flat Strength score of 36, because at that point why did you bother putting a good stat in Strength at all?

--d.

[RandomCasualty]

Stat boosting isn't inherently bad, so long as the bonuses are reasonable.

Though really, I don't even consider stat replacement the worst part of polymorph. IMO, the natural armor bonuses are what make the spell crazy. Stat replacement is crappy mechanically and allows for abuses like the 8 physical stat druid. This is bad, but not always game breaking. The onyl reason it breaks the game for polymorph is because the stats you're replacing are way better than normal stats for normal characters. You can get more strength than the half-orc barbarian for instance.

What is game breaking is the insane AC mods you're getting from some polymorphs. You're talking about +10 or greater bonuses to AC that are totally stackable with everything else. That IMO tends to be a far greater danger than stat replacement.