![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/ann_milovidova-incantation-5337079.jpg\")
Image<\/a> by Ann_Milovidova<\/a> from Pixabay<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n See this post<\/a> for credits list.<\/p><\/div>\n Elephant in the room: This post is in more than 15 sections, and many have additional subsections. It’s effectively a full game supplement. So it’s big.<\/p>\n That doesn’t make it complicated (though it sometimes can be). That also doesn’t make it hard, even though it is considered one of the hardest spell-related topics to tackle, and one of the most boring. I am, in fact, posting it here because it’s by FAR the simplest system for handling this than any other that I have seen. It’s not an 80+ page supplement – it’s far shorter and easier to digest than any of the alternatives.<\/p>\n It’s not exclusively fantasy, either, though that thought might have hard-sci-fi fans wincing. For the most part, this is A mole is a unit of measurement, mostly used in Chemistry. One mole is exactly a specific number of elementary entities, which cane be atoms, molecules, ions, ion pairs, or other particles – this number is named Avogadro’s Number. Most of the time, it’s an inconvenient number for game purposes, but it has one vital quality that this system takes advantage of: One mole of substance means that the real physical weight of a substance in grams is equal to the atomic weight of the substance.<\/p>\n Moles refer to the number of ‘items’ in a specific volume, traditionally defined as the number of Carbon-12 atoms in 12 grams of the substance. It was initially measured with a silicon crystal, for reasons that don’t matter here, and it can get more complicated when one substance is dissolved into another, but that doesn’t matter.<\/p>\n The root measurement of a volume is r^3, so you might think that the cube root of a natural measure is the natural way to cut this large number down in size a bit, but this ignores that most molecules are 3D in shape. So my system considers that a volume essentially consists of r planes through an r^3 space, and that means that r^3\/r = r^2 is the operative practical measure – so it uses the square root and not the cube root.<\/p>\n But we’re not interested in applying it to the large number – which is so irrelevant that I’m not even going to quote it, you can look it up under Mole_(unit)<\/a> at Wikipedia if you’re interested. Instead, we’re using the Molecular Weight of an element, which is the same thing as the Atomic Weight times the number of atoms in a molecule. Sounds complicated, but it’s not all that bad, once you’ve seen it in practice.<\/p>\n So, the atomic weight of copper is 63.55, and the square root of that is 7.9718 – but I would use 64 and 8 as conveniences.<\/p>\n If you multiply one such measure by the atomic weight, you get a ‘square mole’. No-one else uses these, but they can be useful at times. In particular, if you have a constant set to the value of r, and then use a value of ‘1’ for r as a standard, then you can get the equivalent of r^4 \/ r = r^3, taking us back to a volume equivalent. It only works by cheating, but it works in this particular case.<\/p>\n The square mole of copper, with an atomic weight of ~64, is therefore 8 x 64 = 512 units – 512 “what’s” we neither know nor care right now. This is game mechanics, not physics or chemistry!<\/p>\n If you want to determine the size of a certain amount of something in a fixed volume, you multiply that volume by the density. This varies very little with temperature for solids like copper, quite a bit more for liquids like water, and incredibly much more for gasses like oxygen.<\/p>\n My system intends to disregard this as much as humanly possible. When it comes to solids and even liquids, it can do so fairly safely; it’s only a problem with gasses.<\/p>\n Exempting that caveat, you can say that 1 mole of a substance weighs the atomic weight (if it’s a pure element) or the sum of the atomic weights (if it’s a compound).<\/p>\n Water – H20 – has two Hydrogens (1 x 2) and 1 Oxygen (16) for a total of 18. The root density of water is 4.24, and the square mole of water is 18 grams per cubic centimeter. Or water consists of 1\/18th of a cubic centimeter per gram.<\/p>\n (For the record, it’s also irrelevant: Protons and Neutrons weigh more than 1800 times the weight of an electron – which means that electrons are nothing more than rounding errors to such a system.)<\/p>\n If I have 300 g of water in a wine-cup, that’s 300\/18 = 16 2\/3 moles.<\/p>\n Except for things like the calculation immediately above, I intend to ignore all this. There are much less difficult ways (even if they are completely inaccurate) as you will see later.<\/p>\n There aren’t many more fundamental concepts to explain before we can dig into the system itself (that’s what I’m doing, by the way, if you hadn’t figured that out yet). This one is a bit more abstract and aimed at game balance and ‘look and feel’ more than anything else.<\/p>\n In a sci-fi setting, transmutation changes aren’t permanent. They will revert to what they were in a period of time – the decay rate – the specifics of which we haven’t calculated yet. This change can be delayed by continuing to pump energy into the system if the GM permits it. Sci-fi settings also tend to be a lot more energy-intensive than Fantasy settings, full of Tesla Coil displays and the like. Visually, lots more spectacular.<\/p>\n Fantasy gaming works differently. It more closely resembles the ‘look and feel’ of fantasy if the change is permanent – unless someone applies the opposite transmutation, of course. If you can change lead into gold, it stays gold. But there is a shortcut used by the magic of some races – they can pay 1\/4 of the normal energy price (again, not determined yet) and the results are just as permanent – until one of two other ‘triggers’ get experienced, which triggers an instant reversal. Fey are notorious for this. One of the triggers is tapping the transmuted substance on a larger quantity (by weight) of the base material; the other is usually subjecting it to a spell, but that’s usually up to the GM again.<\/p>\n Even in a sci-fi setting, it should matter before this rule gets invoked. I can see a plotline in which someone makes ‘fake’ valuables that decay and get exposed. I can’t see a good reason to burden a story with someone making ammonia that would slowly revert to methane. Far better to hand-wave this whole question – unless<\/em> the GM can use it in a story.<\/p>\n Almost the last piece of the puzzle is the Periodic Table Of The Elements – ones showing the density and atomic weight, preferably, though you can look those up separately if you have to.<\/p>\n Studying what that is leads to contradictions and revisions and all sorts of shenanigans – so forget all that, and simply use a convenient table. But the layout matters – a lot.<\/p>\n Image by (Wikipedia) User:Double sharp<\/a>, based on File:Simple Periodic Table Chart-en.svg by (Wikipedia) User:Offnfopt<\/a>, licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0<\/a>. Click on the image for a much larger version in a new tab.<\/p><\/div>\n The above image does NOT contain those additional numbers that I spoke of – for that, you need something like the SI Chemical Data reference book by Aylward & Findlay, which I have been using since High School in the mid-to-late 1970s. You can get the 7th edition for about A$85 for the paperback, but that’s so much that I can’t recommend it. It’s not much cheaper here in Australia, either – which makes me wonder what they are using as a cheap reference in high schools these days.<\/p>\n Anyway, here’s the most important thing to note: there are no gaps in the table. If you track left of Helium, you get Hydrogen. If you track left of Boron, you find Beryllium. And so on.<\/p>\n The same does not hold true going the other way – or not quite as easily, anyway. Track right of Helium, and while you will end up eventually getting to Lithium going right, it’s a much harder deal to pull off. So there is a directional differential, and that’s something that this system takes full advantage of.<\/p>\n The more pure the material, the easier it is to transmute, and the more expensive it is to acquire. Even substances that we normally think of as ‘naturally pure’ like water often have all sorts of mineral salts dissolved in them. Rainwater might seem more pure, but anything encountered in the atmosphere becomes a contaminant – though that’s less in a medieval era than in an industrial one.<\/p>\n This is a bit of a fudge, because it also includes the transport of the material from where it is found to where it can be used – so snow might be very pure but it costs money to transport it to the city in a closed container. And if transmutation makes it valuable, that makes it a target for bandits and raiders, incurring protection costs. The clever GM should be able to maintain price equity.<\/p>\n That doesn’t stop PCs trying to short the system by providing such labor themselves – but I would submit (1) that this won’t completely eliminate the costs, and (2) a PC devoting time and attention to such matters is worth a premium simply because it’s a PC and because it can be used as a springboard to adventures beyond this simple starting point. Player engagement can be worth the price, several times over.<\/p>\n The base price of the materials is set by the GM according to what it is, per oz. If it’s likely to be valuable within an adventure, double it; if it’s not, halve it. For example, Boron might be the basis for a number reagents and chemicals that would be extremely valuable to an alchemist in a laboratory setting but essentially worthless in a dungeon because they are too easily contaminated; halve the price. Silver or Gold are the basis of comparison, so the base price moves neither up nor down – and should be the value of the currency. Phosphorous (sealed in a glass container) could be extremely valuable as an explosive – double it’s base price.<\/p>\n Every x5 to the base price halves the impurities in the source. So water that has 1\/4 the impurities costs 5×2^2 = 20 times the base price. Water that has 1\/16th the impurities costs 4 times as much, or 80 times the base price (per oz).<\/p>\n Each step in reduced impurities reduces the cost of a single transmutation by 1 energy level per step (x5 if you’re using points). If you have a complex path of 3 or 4 transmutations, that could be 3, 6, 9, or even 12 fewer energy levels required.<\/p>\n But on top of that is the price of the process itself. This starts at a flat 1 gp per oz and stays there unless the alchemist chooses to invest in it. Increasing this also reduces the energy levels required by one step. The multiples are x2, x5, x10, x20, x25, and x50. That could be another 6 energy levels per step, saved. But it can easily suck all the profitability out of a transmutation.<\/p>\n The conclusion is that at the moment,<\/em> the state of the art doesn’t permit the economic<\/em> transmutation of elements as readily is people might hope. More (expensive) research is needed, “I’m sure we’re on the verge of a breakthrough”….<\/p>\n But there is one final (potential) saving grace to consider: The Rule Of Cool. If the GM thinks the process should invoke the Rule Of Cool, he can divide the cost by 1.5, 2, 2,5, 3, or even 4 in the most extreme of cases. And if the player agrees, he can multiply this factor by 1.5 – but only if the GM has already permitted the rule of cool to have an effect.<\/p>\n It is NOT cool to risk breaking the monetary system. Whatever the adjustment, it is capped at 1\/2 of whatever would fall short of this amount – this can make a lot of difference when it comes to making gemstones, for example, which might<\/em> be covered. Silver, Gold, and Platinum are definitely NOT amongst the outcomes protected by the rule of cool – usually. Section 17e demonstrates an exception, based on Sugar.<\/p>\n For a x2\/3 reduction or increase (as appropriate, must be beneficial), the character can increase the casting cost one step. The progression is 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 250, 500, 750, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10,000, 20,000, 50,000, 100,000, and so on. That’s 26 levels explicitly named.<\/p>\n The x2\/3 or \/ 2\/3 can be spread out as the user sees fit but are fixed once set and the spell is approved. This is always the LAST modifier applied.<\/p>\n Instead of reducing energy levels per step by n<\/em>, you could divide them by 2^n. Instead of 1 less, x 1\/2; instead of 2 less, x 1\/4; and so on.<\/p>\n I asked Gemini to analyze the difference. My expectation is that makes heavier element transmutation much easier to achieve. Platinum, atomic number 78, is one of the highest-atomic-number elements an alchemist might work with (even though it’s expensive). Here’s a summary of what it had to say:<\/p>\n Shifting from the Atomic Number (Z<\/em>) to the root Mole (sqrt{Atomic Weight}) completely recalibrates the math – and it solves several heavy-element balancing issues right out of the gate.<\/p>\n Multi-step transmutations hits on the exact structural difference between subtraction and division across a chain:The Multi-Step Reality: Most valuable transmutations (like your Tin $\\to$ Gold or Silicon $\\to$ Gold paths) require multiple steps. Each step is its own distinct transmutation with its own base cost<\/p>\n Linear adjustments per step therefore scale with the number of steps, encouraging this behavior by alchemists. The imperative would be a sequence of smaller steps.<\/p>\n Comparing this with the alternative, where the modifier is applied only to the end total, the imperative is to build as much as possible into a single step and make those steps as large as possible for efficiency. This is then scaled down drastically by the modifier to something manageable.<\/p>\n They both work, but they shift the emphasis on the process being applied. And the alternative can be more dangerous in terms of the output produced.\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n My intention is to leave it to the GM, with the above advice in place. I think that for high-magic campaigns, the division is more appropriate and spectacular, while for low-magic campaigns, the subtraction is more elegant and granular – and subtractions are easier than divisions.<\/p>\n This system uses Atomic Mass in various forms because that’s one of the invariant distinguishing characteristics of an elemental atom. Many of the properties vary with temperature; this one doesn’t.<\/p>\n The 1 oz basic limit is relatively low, and that’s not by accident – it’s a test-tube amount, usually a couple of teaspoons. For some reactions, the character will want to raise this minimum, even if it means higher spell levels.<\/p>\n The default is -n spell levels for 1\/2^n impurities. Increasing volume instead should be less efficient to discourage excess, so I recommend a formula of<\/p>\n +n spell levels or +5n points for x 1.5^n volume, up to +5; and x 2^n for +6 to +10; and x 2.5^n for +11 to +20, and x4^n thereafter.<\/p>\n So a +5 in spell levels TO EACH STEP\/STAGE would be x1.5^5 = x 7.6 volume. It is normal to set a value based on a default expected minimum and a table of further increases x steps\/stages compared to a volume multiple. This permits the character to work backwards from the volume of the space to determine how much it will cost to affect it.<\/p>\n These require GM approval. He can enforce a lower or higher minimum. Both 10′ x 10′ x 10′ and 20′ x 20′ x 10′ (1000 cubic feet and 4000 cubic feet, respectively) are common minimums. Occasionally, you might see a 5′ x 5′ x 5′, but this is rare.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the system permits the setting of a concentration cap – this is explained and demonstrated in 17h’s “Amounts” sub-section. Cap amounts do not count against the increases above.<\/p>\n The use of this system precludes Price Reduction options.<\/strong><\/p>\n If you are using a points-based system, multiply the spell levels by 5 to get the equivalent.<\/p>\n Given that density is mass over volume, affecting mass in the same way will follow the same progression, and is often the simpler approach when using solids and sometimes liquids – it’s all about how the materials or products are usually purchased.<\/p>\n Because it’s all about affecting the materials, the source is dominant – if you’re starting with a liquid that’s becoming a solid, use volume – but keep the equivalence in mind; affecting 100x the volume means creating 100x the mass.<\/p>\n The final cornerstone here is a key restriction – transmutation doesn’t have a completely empty field to occupy. If you don’t know that an element exists, and its properties, you can’t use it. At first, that might seem more like a Fantasy restriction than a Sci-Fi one, but it includes elements that have only ever been inferred or that are only present for fractions of second in Sci-Fi settings. Anything above Atomic Number 102, in fact.<\/p>\n That does bite Fantasy Alchemists more than Sci-Fi types, though. So many elements weren’t known in the medieval age, which is the equivalent time period to most fantasy campaigns. It’s possible that they knew more than you thought they did though, so it can be important to check. Strontium, for example (Element #38) was only discovered in 1790.<\/p>\n For convenience, I use a cut-off date of 1600 – if an element was found after that, it’s “off the table,” so to speak.<\/p>\n If a GM wanted to,<\/em> he could make that date later, representing additional knowledge that the alchemists of the day possessed, but that were not known to the most educated layperson. If you choose this option, remember that knowledge grew comparatively slowly back then; I recommend 1700 or 1750 or – at the most extreme – 1800 for this purpose.<\/p>\n The amount of knowledge humanity generates in just 5 years today would have taken between 300 to over 3,000 years to accumulate during the 1700s! So, one year between phone models would have taken at least 6-60+ years, assuming they had the technology at the time. So an extra 100 years is a lot.<\/em><\/p>\n I should also clarify that it’s fine for an intermediate part of a step to land on an element unknown to the rules; it’s only stopping there as an intermediate product that’s forbidden.<\/p>\n Image<\/a> by Curious Hunter<\/a> from Pixabay<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n The base movement on the periodic table by Transmutation moves an element down 1 and left 1. Anything else is a ‘Joined Move’, and sometimes necessary, but not as easy to do. Nor is crossing the table’s left edge to emerge on it’s right-hand side, one row up – Rubidium (Element #37) to Krypton (Element #36) for example (even if it were permitted, which it isn’t, because Krypton was discovered in 1898). Let’s look a row above that, then, and say that it’s not easy to go from Sodium (#11) to Neon (#10) – but whoops, it also wasn’t discovered until 1898! Even Helium wasn’t found until 1868 – it’s off the table.<\/p>\n So Aluminium (#13) – known as Aluminum in the states – can easily become Zinc (#30), going down one to Gallium and Left one to Zinc. Or it could become Calcium (Left 1 to Magnesium and then down 1). And Zinc can – relatively easily – become Aluminium, going in the other direction Down 1 Left 1 to Silver, then right 2 to Indium and up two to aluminium – okay, maybe that’s not so easy after all!. Boron (#5) can easily become Magnesium (#12), not to be confused with Manganese (#25, and first found in the 1770s).<\/p>\n All transmutation costs energy – 1 spell level or 15 active points, if those are what your system uses, to transmute 1 mole of a substance along a base move, PLUS the root mole number. But you can always subtract 1 from this total by multiplying the amount x 2\/3 – which is explained below.<\/p>\n Note that the 15 points to 1 spell level ONLY applies to this specific conversion to points; everything else uses a x5 standard conversion.<\/p>\n Multiple base moves can be combined, each subsequent one costing 50% more than the one before.<\/p>\n You can also throw in more casters – each additional one adds 1\/2 (round down) to the energy total generated. So teams of alchemists can do what no one could manage.<\/p>\n +1 caster = x1.5 energy levels. energy levels x 2 +1 = n casters.<\/p>\n For every 2 levels below the lead caster, they produce -0.5 energy levels.<\/p>\n But, under most circumstances, there is a maximum of 5 casters, and special permission is needed from the GM (and perhaps some special ability, environment, or circumstance) to exceed that minimum.<\/p>\n I haven’t mentioned energy levels for a Sci-Fi setting. That’s because there are too many game mechanics configurations to be hard and fast about these rules. As a general rule, assume that 1 million volts is roughly analogous to 1 spell level unless<\/em> your system makes available some other way of gauging the effectiveness \/ cost of a gadget, in which case, use that.<\/em><\/p>\n If the substance to be affected is in a compound, you have two choices: you can either double the energy cost and affect both atoms in exactly the same way (and with both meeting the requirements), or you can triple the energy cost and only affect one of the two, alchemist’s choice – but there can be consequences, dealt with a little later.<\/p>\n Click on the image for a larger version in a new tab.<\/p><\/div>\n To get over an unknown element, you may have to move 2 or 3 spaces. In a sci-fi setting, 4 spaces is also an option.<\/p>\n Each extra space adds 50% to the energy cost. This can be paid either by an extra energy input, or by reducing the amount converted by a like proportion. \/1.5 = 2\/3, which should help.<\/p>\n So one extra space is x1.5, two is x2.25, and so on.<\/p>\n Additional moves on the table can be added to the basic move – except for more movements left. When these occur is up to the alchemist, but if there is no element there for the intermediate point to land on, it can’t happen. If you have Aluminium, you can’t find Iron, because there is no element above it and any number of places right until you get to Aluminium itself. To get iron, you have to go down and then 5 spaces left – and that’s more than you’re allowed to do in one step; you’ve just run headlong into a Session Limit.<\/p>\n It can be cheaper to go up, left, down, and then right to get where you’re going. Navigating a route, where every sub-step has to land on a known element, can be quite tricky.<\/p>\n You can make things a lot easier for yourself by working from a photocopy of the Periodic Table in which you’ve crossed off all the things not available. That means that you only have to do the research on the discovery of elements once.<\/em><\/p>\n There is a minimum cost of 1 energy level for a basic move, but that’s not usually a problem.<\/p>\n Calculate a Mole Square and substitute that for the Root Mole in the basic cost calculations of energy levels. 1\/4 of this is the additional energy cost of moving Right two spaces on top of a standard move – in other words, down one and one to the right instead of to the left. Sodium to Calcium, for example.<\/p>\n x5 if you’re using points.<\/p>\n 1\/3 of the Mole Square value in the base cost gets you up an extra step (plus the need to undo the base move that’s always included, if necessary). Sulfur to Oxygen would be an example. So would Silicon to Carbon.<\/p>\n x5 if you’re using points.<\/p>\n It’s easier to move down. This only cost 1.5 x the normal energy cost of the move – unless you have to wrap around the table and cross the inert gas line, of course. A good example that’s a little more complicated than those examined to date would be Boron to Calcium – the standard move spans the blues to and you on Magnesium and then the extra one down takes you to Calcium.<\/p>\n x5 if you’re using points.<\/p>\n This is the most difficult single process involved. Not only do you have to move an extra space left or right, which doubles the price, but you have to cross the Inert Gas Line, which doubles it again to 4x whatever it would otherwise have cost. Sodium to Bromine, for example. Except that Bromine wasn’t isolated until 1825-6. Selenium is no help, it comes from 1817. So we land on Arsenic. The Inert Gasses do not count against the limit of additional leftward movement,<\/em> so this is 1 down and 3 steps left – at 4x the normal price. Meaning that it’s permissible in Fantasy, not just Sci-Fi.<\/p>\n Most of the time, just because you can’t land<\/em> on it in a single move, it doesn’t mean the element doesn’t exist – the Inert Gasses (sometimes called the Noble Gasses in olden times) are an exception.<\/p>\n x5 if you’re using points, \/2 if you’re in a sci-fi campaign.<\/p>\n I recommend this for sci-fi campaigns only: Instead of taking energy, the basic transformation with one step releases<\/em> that amount of energy AFTER the initial cost is paid.<\/p>\n Energy + Subject = 2 x Energy + Changed Subject.<\/p>\n From this outcome, subtract everything else by adding it to the left-hand side of the equation. With 2 x energy on the right, 2 energy ‘inputs’ can be canceled out to get the net cost,<\/p>\n “Why?” is a logical question at this point. For the answers, let me point you at Crystal Nomad, a representative of a species known as a Pyrogermanite Waveling (pronounced ‘Pyro-germanite’). This is a species from a magic-rich environment (where ‘magic’ doesn’t mean the same this (quite) as it would in a Fantasy Campaign). I’ll save most of the details for a specific post presenting the creature, but for now: It lives on phosphorus, transmuting it to Germanium, which releases the energy that it needs to live. The Germanium wafers form a semi-conductive skin that it sheds. When it gets hungry, because this reaction is an exciter more than the entire energy supply involved, it begins to cannibalize it’s own structure, which causes the external temperature to shoot up – way up. This can cause wildfires and weather events. The PCs, from only a few clues, were able to analyze its nature almost completely.<\/p>\n Look for Crystal Nomad in a future episode of “Pieces Of Creation”. And I might do one about magical “Faraday Cages” while I’m at it, since that subsystem was also developed for this campaign in the course of the last year.<\/p>\n Instead, let’s momentarily zoom out and talk more generically: If transmutation exists and releases energy, it can be the foundations of all sorts of exotic creatures that are otherwise really hard to justify. It vastly expands your palette when it comes to encounters. Dragons, Wavelings, Elementals of all kinds, maybe high-level Undead as well – all sorts of things come to occupy a science-fiction niche and flavor that makes them suitable inclusions in a slightly soft sci-fi campaign.<\/p>\n I’m using it predominantly in a superhero campaign, which fits that bill to a “T” – it’s a hard sci-fi campaign with selective myopia when it comes to the ‘hard’ part.<\/p>\n \nI should probably state that the first draft of these transmutation rules were worked out to be the foundation of this creature – but I didn’t want to make this post all about it, because that would undermine their presentation as a working system.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There are seven topics each alchemic transformation needs to address, or at least consider.<\/p>\n I won’t hit you between the eyes with all of them for every example, but some parts are pretty much synonymous with the process. And I might play fast-and-loose with the sequence to frame a better narrative out of each example.<\/p>\n So, let’s say that you are working with ordinary Salt (NaCl, or Sodium Chloride, i.e. Sodium and Chlorine in equal measure). A standard move for both constituents lands you on Bromine -> Selenium -> Arsenic (as described earlier) and Selenium -> Arsenic -> Germanium (1869, respectively. Except that Germanium is off the table, so this is forbidden. The circumstances leave you no choice but to affect the sodium exclusively, and end up with Arsenic Chloride.<\/p>\n The natural form is Arsenic Trichloride – which means that the result is Chlorine starved. Some of the molecules would steal the extras needed to get to AsCl3, leaving two Arsenic atoms without their chlorines. This is nasty stuff – it’s volatile, extremely poisonous, and dissolves in water. It’s usually colorless, but impure examples – of which, this is definitely one – have a yellow color.<\/p>\n Though stable in dry air, arsenic forms a golden-bronze tarnish upon exposure to humidity which eventually becomes a black surface layer. It’s natural “pure” state is As3 – so that needs to be taken into account when determining how much of it there is:<\/p>\n 9 x NaCl -> 9 x AsCl -> 2 x As3 + 3 x AsCl3<\/p>\n 9 moles becomes 5 moles, an almost 50% reduction. In terms of component particles.<\/p>\n Or, I could use atomic weights:. Or, I could use Densities – Arsenic (gray) is 5.72 g \/ cm^3, Chlorine is 1.56, Sodium is 0.97, Sodium Chloride is 2.2, and so is Arsenic Trichloride: But nothing beats the ease and convenience if 5\/9ths. You start with 9 oz, you end up with 5 Or you start with 3, and end with 1 2\/3. Or you start with 9\/5=1.8 oz, and you end up with 1.<\/p>\n SO much simpler..<\/p>\n In reality, Hydrogen is about 0.53 parts per million of the atmosphere, so there might be some loss to AsH3 – but it won’t be much. It would be a different story if a second alchemist were transforming the Chlorine into Hydrogen, though.<\/p>\n It’s relevant, because anyone adopting this methodology will have to do their own research. The quick and easy answer is Wikipedia, but you can likely get just as far doing a Google search for “Tell me about NaCl” or any other compound or element you name.<\/p>\n Here’s the critical point: However you choose, if the information isn’t there after one query or search, it’s not there, period.<\/em> If you need it, make stuff up.<\/em><\/p>\n And if a different search later changes the results to include the ‘invented’ info? Make something ELSE up.<\/em> “There was a local condition,” or “Sunspots,” or “A pyrokinsis cloud emitted by a nearby nova’s chromasphere distorted the results”. Make it credible, make it fast, and move on.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As stated earlier, characters conducting transmutation have a choice: they can affect all elements within a compound equally and in exactly the same way, or they can single out a single element.<\/p>\n Quite obviously, this changes the chemical composition of the resulting material into some form that didn’t previously exist. The laws of nature then take over and dictate what happens to that material.<\/p>\n If you’re relatively lucky, the product is stable or benign – this is far easier with pure elements, but far more interesting when it’s a compound. And that’s what this section of the rules is all about.<\/p>\n It’s the height of elegant alchemy to preconfigure your compounds into exactly the shape you will need them to occupy at the end of the process, working back from that to where you need to start,<\/p>\n The bottom line is that every compound that you know about can be transformed into any other compound you know about – it just has to be done the right way. And the efficiency can vary all over the shop.<\/p>\n You want titanium steel? You could start with rust, and turn the oxygen into titanium. You could start with carbon steel, and turn the carbon into titanium. You could start with cheese<\/em> and turn it into titanium steel. And if you don’t know what Titanium (discovered in 1798) is – you can still do it, you just don’t know how it works.<\/p>\n …and it’s also known as wood alcohol and wood spirit, amongst other things. Let’s start here, because it’s something complicated – and that means that it shows off more of the system at once.<\/p>\n Commonly found in aftershaves, it’s notoriously similar to alcohol but more toxic. It can be used to make all sorts of other things that are commonly found, even in Fantasy campaigns, like Formaldehyde. The chemical formula is CH3OH, which makes it simpler than Ethanol (drinkable alcohol), whose formula is CH3CH2OH.<\/p>\n There are always two questions: What can you do if you have it, and how can you make it if you don’t.<\/p>\n Turning it into alcohol is difficult – it requires breaking the OH off and then reattaching it after a second CH2 gets added. But let’s say that you start with a mixture of water and Methanol and that’s where you want to be at the end.<\/p>\n CH3OH, minus the OH, gives CH3- and can be achieved by turning the oxygen into carbon. It needs to be something that won’t bond very strongly to carbon. That means, generally, that it needs to be from the same vertical part of the periodic table – so silicon will work.<\/p>\n CH3OH -> CH3SiH -> CH3- + SIH. Some of the CH3s will join with others and become CH3CH3, better known as Ethane. Some of it will steal a hydrogen from the water to become CH4, Methane. And that will leave OH+ loose, some of which will link up with the CH3- to become Methanol again. And finally, with lots of OH floating around, we will also get some knocking one of the hydrogens off CH3CH3 to make CH3CH2OH (pure alcohol) or maybe even HOCH2CH2OH or CH3CHOHOH (ain’t organic chemistry fun?)<\/p>\n So next, you need to look up those compounds and see what they are like.<\/p>\n Methane is easiest – it’s a gas at room temperature, so it will bubble out of the mix. It’s also flammable, and if you burn it, you get CO2 and water.<\/p>\n Ethane is less well known, but it’s also a gas, and it’s only very slightly soluble in water. If it’s burned, it makes C02 and water. . <\/p>\n So that all bubbles out and can be ignited into something relatively safe. That leaves SiH, hardly known at all. It also has the name Sililydine (as I found by typing SiH into the search box at Wikipedia). It’s generally found attached to surfaces but has been located in sunspots. There isn’t a lot of useful information about it. Because Silicon is directly below Carbon, though, this compound will share similar properties to CH, which is want to stabilize into CH4, which we’ve already discussed – so the assumption can be made that this will steal Hydrogens from H20 to release oxygen and make SiH4.<\/p>\n SiH4 is called Silane, a pyrophoric gas – which means that it ignites spontaneously in air. Which is all the Methane and Ethane burnoff need in order to combust. It is also a colorless gas with a pungent smell.<\/p>\n We also have OH, as already noted, which is a Hydroxyl, found in acids, and known as Hydroxide and the Hydroxyl Radical, depending on the circumstances. Two or more of these in a carbon-based molecule is what makes it soluble in water (eg Sugar) – which means that while it can be in the presence<\/em> of water, Methanol doesn’t actually dissolve, just dilutes.<\/p>\n That leaves two products to be looked up: HOCH2CH2OH and CH3CHOHOH.<\/p>\n The first of these is Ethylene Glygol, a colorless, odorless, viscous, and flammable liquid. It has a sweet taste but is toxic in high concentrations. It has two OH groups, so it will be water-soluble. With fire already present, the flammability question is important, but Wikipedia had no information that I could find readily. In particular, I couldn’t see anything that suggested that Ethylene Glycol dissolved in water was still flammable. So, an arbitrary ruling: it isn’t.<\/p>\n The other one is CH3CHOHOH – about which I could find no information at all. As a backup, I took a quick glimpse at the organic compounds section of SI Chemical Data, again without success.<\/p>\n As usual, in the absence of real info, make something up. “Bihydroxicol” sounds good. “Odorless with a slightly fruity taste” sounds good. “Unreactive” simplifies the problem greatly.<\/p>\n When putting Gemini to work on “17e Sugar Experiment #2”, I had to acquaint it with the current version of the rules. Logically, it ran (at request) a proofreading & consistency check, in the course of which it identified this compound as 1,1-ethanediol (CH3CHOH2).<\/p>\n 1,1-diols (geminal diols) spontaneously dehydrate in water to form Acetaldehyde<\/strong> (CH3CHO), which has a sharp, fruity, green-apple odor. Your arbitrary ruling of “odorless with a slightly fruity taste”<\/em> is actually remarkably close to real-world acetaldehyde!\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n With that knowledge, we can revisit the reactions.<\/p>\n CH3OH + H2O -> CH3SiH + H20 -> CH3 + SIH + H20 – note that three of these consume the three OH groups –<\/p>\n (gasses ignite)<\/p>\n -> CH3CH2OH + CH3CH2OHOH + CH3CHOHOH + CH4 + H20 + CO2 + SiO2 + H2 So we get sand at the bottom of the vessel, a gas explosion above the liquid, and a fruity sweet alcohol that’s safe to drink. Whatever water is left at the end dilutes the strength.<\/p>\n To get quantities, let’s track the carbon atoms pre-ignition, excluding the compounds that won’t become CO2:<\/p>\n 2 + alcohol + fruity + sweet + 1 = 3 – and we started with 1, so about 1\/3 of the non-water at the start becomes alcohol. Start with a glass, we get 1\/3 of a glass; start with a bottle, we get 1\/3 of a bottle.<\/p>\n A quick filter to get rid of the sand, and its ready to drink.<\/p>\n Finally, to the alchemy itself. This reaction goes from Oxygen to Silicon – Down 1 and 2 left. It’s an exotic transmutation,.but not a very difficult one. The base cost is 1 spell level x 1.5 for the extra step left = 1.5, or 15 active points x 1.5 = 22.5. But we also have to add the root mole number itself: 16^0.5 = 4. So that’s 5 or 42.5, depending on whether or not you’re talking points of effect or spell levels. Since there’s no such thing as 1\/2 a point, that increases to 43.<\/p>\n Making it in the first place is more difficult, because it has three elements – so you need to start with something that has three elements in it, but one of these is the wrong one. So I went scanning through SI Chemical Data’s Organic Compounds section, looking for CH3[X]H, and the closest thing that I found in just a few seconds was CH3NH2. Turn the N into an O, forcing the release of the extra H, and Bob’s your uncle.<\/p>\n This is methamine or, more precisely, methylamine. “Amine” basically means smell, from memory. Looking that compound up on Wikipedia gives a colorless gas that smells strongly of rotten fish. But it wasn’t available until 1849. It’s also listed as being flammable and corrosive. All of which means that it’s not a viable candidate for a fantasy campaign. Anything else will involve chemical reactions, unfortunately. Given its ready availability by standard production means, I don’t think its something an alchemist would explore very thoroughly.<\/p>\n That doesn’t make it impossible, just something that’s not going to be worth the alchemist’s time<\/em> (and therefore not worth the GM’s time).\n<\/ol>\n We’ve already gone into ethanol (drinkable alcohol) quite a bit, so I’ve deleted the section focusing on it, and moved on to one of the key tropes of a Fantasy campaign – turning water into wine.<\/p>\n The active ingredient in wine is ethanol – that lost section was to provide a bridge to it – but ethanol itself is transparent, tasteless and odorless. The characteristics of wine are color, flavor, and scent.<\/p>\n That means that unless we get lucky, we’re talking about four transformations – and H20 only has two elements, while ethanol has three, and there may be more. So we?re going to have to get clever in order to introduce something more.<\/p>\n Fortunately, we also have the air. Turning Nitrogen into carbon essentially turns N2 into C2 – the spine of alcohol. But N2 uses three bonds to join the two atoms together, so that would create two more, one on each Carbon atom. If we bubbled it through water and provided some electrical current, we would break the water up into hydrogen and oxygen; left to their own devices, these would become 2 x H2 and an O2, but the alchemy gives an easier target. So we would get HCCH and CHCOH.<\/p>\n We could look these up, but it’s my recollection (right or wrong) that Carbon doesn’t like multiple bonds when it doesn’t need them – it would rather release the extra bonds and add other elements. So these would be transitory, becoming CH3CH3 and CH3CH2OH – both of which we’ve already looked at. That’s Ethane and Alcohol. And the Ethane will bubble out, where it can be burned off.<\/p>\n So the questions that remain are where the color and the flavor of wine come from, chemically.<\/p>\n A quick skim through the Wikipedia page on Wine says nothing about the chemistry involved. But it does state that the sweetness comes from leftover sugars, and the color comes from how long grape-skins are left to ferment – and there’s nothing here that manipulates time. But that’s the key – fermentation. The ‘search Wikipedia’ panel quickly turns up “Fermentation in Winemaking”, which “turns grape juice into wine”. So we need some grape juice (for the color and sweetness) and the above alchemic reaction to make the alcohol, and the results will be close enough.<\/p>\n But looking up “Grape Juice” doesn’t give a chemical formula, either. Retreating, I remember noticing that Fermentation turns a carbohydrate into a sugar. So let’s try those and see how we do.<\/p>\n Carbohydrates are a group of chemical compounds that consist of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen. In general, they have the form Cn(H2O)n, where n is an unknown number, not necessarily the same. And a scan through the page quickly shows that Sugars are themselves Carbohydrates – especially Fructose and Glucose. Fructose is the thing that gives fruit it’s sweetness – and its Wikipedia page says that it has a sweetness roughly twice that of Glucose.\n<\/ol>\n The formula itself is complicated enough that it’s time to wheel out another rule of thumb:<\/p>\n \nIf the ingredients are right, they will spontaneously fall into the right shapes over time. The number of ingredients divided by the core number of atoms, squared, gives a relative indication of this time period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, Fructose has two CH2OH groups, an O, 3 HOs, and 3 Hs in D-fructose, plus 4 carbons as the central spine. Rearranging those gives other varieties of Fructose. Our alchemic reaction, leaving things to the rule of thumb, will have every permitted combination. That’s fine by me; it won’t be this variety of wine or that, but a blend of all of them with alcohol.<\/p>\n I’ve reoriented the above to better fit the display space at Campaign Mastery. The original file<\/a> was released into the public domain by the author; file via Wikipedia.<\/p><\/div>\n Broken up a little more like this, and the CH2O2 groups go away, adding 2 C’s, 2 OHs, and 4 Hs to the total, which is now 6 Cs, 5 OHs, 5 Hs, and an O.<\/p>\n The Hs and OHs come from Water + electricity. The Os can come from O2 in the air. All we need is the central spine of 6 carbon atoms in a string – no more, no less. Hexane has that plus 14 Hydrogens. Convert the Hydrogen into something that won’t bond with Carbon, and the rest should take care of itself – if the ingredients are right – molecular hydrogen and oxygen.<\/p>\n Hexane is a colorless liquid, relatively safe, and odorless when pure. Alchemicly transform the Hydrogen into Silicon, and we should be there. That silicon will also grab some Hydrogen or some Oxygen to become Silicon Hydride and Silicon Dioxide – the latter being sand.<\/p>\n Silicon Hydride comes in multiple varieties, the simplest of which is SiH4, or Silane. This is a colorless gas that is pyrophoric – it spontaneously combusts. It is also known to be water-repellent. So it should exit the reaction chamber with great enthusiasm and burst into flame – which takes care of the Ethane for us. It will probably also set the alcohol alight unless the water prevents this – I’m not sure.\n<\/ol>\n Image<\/a> by Mariakray<\/a> from Pixabay<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n One more rule of thumb to help out:<\/p>\n \nWhen multiple reactions are possible, all will proceed with equal likelihood, unless the reaction mix is ‘salted’ with a sample of one which will be used (even in low concentrations) as a preferred template. This adds 50% to the energy cost of the reaction, or adds 2 if it is zero already.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let’s take stock.<\/p>\n We start by bubbling Nitrogen through a mixture of water and hexane with electricity and transform the nitrogen into carbon, which creates Ethane and Alcohol in the water. Sand is deposited at the bottom of the vessel, and Silane gas escapes, spontaneously igniting and burning the Ethane and any rogue Hydrogen. A little salting with wine or grape-skin as a guideline and we have alcoholic grape juice – wine. Technically, we should filter it, but the appearance and a cautious taste on the fingertip should be enough to make the ‘miracle’ believable. It will look like a dark wine, taste a bit like a wine, and smell like a wine. That would be good enough for me.<\/p>\n All that remains is the alchemy. We’re taking care of some of it with Chemistry, but there are still two alchemic reactions – the Nitrogen into Carbon and the Hydrogen into Silicon.<\/p>\n N2 -> C2: Down 1, Left 1 to Silicon, then up one to Carbon – that’s the base reaction (1 or 15) + 1\/3 x SquareMole (Nitrogen) + 50% for a template. Mole square of nitrogen = (14^0.5)x14 = 3.7417 x 14 = 52.4. That’s a lot. But the GM has had a choice – he can reduce the cost per casting, or can reduce the total. And the caster then has a choice – affect a smaller amount, and\/or spend more for a purity of base ingredients.<\/p>\n Since the reduction overall only affects the grand total, we need to work out the other transformation first.<\/p>\n H2 -> SI2: H -> F (base) +2 left -> N; N (2nd base).<\/p>\n 1 + 1 = base move 2 (or 15+5=20). Totals: 6.75 + 3 = 9.75, rounds to 10; 67.5 + 30 = 97.5, rounds to 98.<\/p>\n Grand totals: 19+10 = 29 spell levels or 86+98=184 points.<\/p>\n But wait – that’s to affect one mole. A typical wine is 12% alcohol and 88% water – which works out to roughly 30ml per mole. Which is about 1\/8 of a cup. Okay, so that’s not going to help very much – in fact, to get a full cup, we need to start with 8 cups at 8 x the cost.<\/p>\n I’ll leave that for now, and come back to it.<\/p>\n Using more pure ingredients increases the cost x5 and reduces each casting by 1 level per casting or step.<\/p>\n The first one is -1 for the casting, and -2 for the additional steps. The second one is just -1 for the casting. Put them all together and you get a -4 – applied to each casting.<\/p>\n So the first one would be 19-4=15 spell levels, or 86-20=66 points. And the second one would be 10-4=6 spell levels or 98-20=68 points. And the grand total would be 15+6=21 spell levels or 66+68=134 points.<\/p>\n Increasing the base price to x20 doubles the subtraction. 19-8=11; 86-40=46; 10-8=2; and 98-40=58. The grand totals would be down to 11+2=13 spell levels or 46+58=104 points.<\/p>\n But let’s not do that; let’s leave the ingredient quality at its earlier value, and instead double the price of the alchemic process. That does exactly the same thing – 13 spell levels or 104 points.<\/p>\n The alchemist can choose to sacrifice a +1 item for 10 spell levels or 5×10 =50 points of this. That’s 3 spell levels or 54 points of effect.<\/p>\n If the GM wants to encourage transmutation on an industrial scale, he might have specified the alternative. Instead of -4, that’s \/2^4 = \/16 – applied to the grand totals.<\/p>\n 29 spell levels \/ 16 = 1.8125 spell levels. Now, let’s apply that x8 for a full glass.<\/p>\n 8 x 1.8125 = 14.5 spell levels. Take off a +1 item, and these reduce to 5 and 42, respectively.<\/p>\n That’s still a bit much – maybe half a glass?<\/p>\n 4 x 1.8125 = 7.25 spell levels. A single +1 item sacrificed pays the price in full.\n<\/ol>\n This time, let’s start with Sugar – no water. Glucose, not Fructose. The difference is an extra HCOH in the middle, making three of them on one side and one on the other. But it’s still all Hydrogen, Carbon, and Oxygen.<\/p>\n Which means that unless the GM is especially generous, we’re dealing with bulk changes of some sort. Let’s turn the Carbon into Copper and the Oxygen into Zinc for our first experiment.<\/p>\n For our second, if the GM permits it – there’s one Oxygen that’s different from the rest, it has a double-bond to the Carbon. That’s one of the things that distinguishes this entire group. So let’s target that specific Oxygen and make it Silver instead, and see what happens.<\/p>\n HC=O – HCOH – HOCH – HCOH – HCOH – CH2OH.<\/p>\n Turning The Oxygen into Zinc has an immediate effect. Checking the SI Chemical Data, there’s no such thing as a Zinc Hydride. <\/p>\n So it will prefer not to bond with Hydrogen, I expect. It’s also in the blue part of the periodic table where most of the metals live, and that means it has two or three bonds – the Beryllium Column is two, the Boron column is three, and this is somewhere in between.<\/p>\n Checking the Wikipedia page leaves no doubt – the normal number is 2, so that’s the same as Oxygen. And, since Carbon is neutral, right in the middle, there’s nothing wrong with Carbon-Zinc bonds. This is fairly straightforward transmutation; we get<\/p>\n HC=Zn – HCZnH – HZnCH – HCZnH – HCZnH – CH2ZnH.<\/p>\n But then we look at the other part of the experiment – Carbon to Copper. Copper is one left of Zinc on the periodic table, and it’s not entirely clear from a quick scan of the Wikipedia page what it’s Valence is. According to SI chemical data, it appears in compounds both in 1- and 2- valence structures; the nomenclature, applied to the Wikipedia page, suggests that it can also be forced into the 3 or 4 state, but there is the suggestion that this is due to its presence in organic compounds. This may have started as an Organic compound, but with these two transmutations, that’s no longer the case. So the molecule no longer has the bonds available that are necessary to maintain its shape; it will shed the H and ZnH groups, for the most part, though these will lie right alongside or on top of the resulting structure:<\/p>\n 12 Hydrogen would be given off as 6H2, and the results would be layers of copper interspersed with Zinc – a brass of sorts. It would not be a great version; copper usually outnumbers zinc by at least 2:1 – but if you consult the phase diagram of the Wikipedia page on brass<\/a> and then scroll down to the table, you will find that it’s a Beta Brass. According to the table, “Beta brasses can only be worked hot, and are harder, stronger, and suitable for casting. The high zinc-low copper content means these are some of the brightest and least-golden of the common brasses.”<\/p>\n Let’s talk Quantity. Glucose has a molar mass of 180.156 – ca;; it 180 for convenience. Take away 12 Hydrogens at 1.008 (use 1) and we are left with 168.<\/p>\n What’s left becomes 6 Copper and 6 Zinc. Copper has a molecular weight of 63.55 – use 63.5 – and Zinc, 65.38, use 65 1\/3, respectively – so 6 will be 381 and 392, for a total of 773 – plus those 12 Hydrogens = 785.<\/p>\n 180 \/ 785 = 0.23 – so the resulting ‘brass pile’ will be only 23% of the size of the original stack of sugar.<\/p>\n Glucose has a density of 1.54 g per cm^3. Copper has a density of 9, and Zinc 7.1 – a sum of 16.1, and an average therefore of 8.05.<\/p>\n Multiply the 1.54 x 0.23 and you get 0.352; multiply that by 8.05, and you get 2.85. So what’s left weighs 2.85 times as much as it did. Start with 1 oz of sugar and end up with 0.23% of the volume of brass, weighing 2.85 oz. It’s noticeably heavier.<\/p>\n Let’s put those into perspective. 1 oz of sugar is about 7 teaspoons; and 2.85 oz of brass would make about 9 coins. Except, of course, brass isn’t used in D&D coins; instead of Zinc, you would want Tin. Which means no-one’s likely to want to lock the alchemist up for counterfeiting.<\/p>\n Two processes. The first one is Oxygen to Zinc. That’s two basic moves and two spaces left.<\/p>\n first basic move: 1 or 15 + second basic move: x1.5, so 7.5 (use 8) or 52.5 (use 53). Two left = x1.5 x 1.5 = x 2.25; apply to the subtotal: The second process is Carbon to Copper. That’s two basic moves and one space left.<\/p>\n first basic move: 1 or 15 + second basic move: x1.5, so 7.5 (use 8) or 26 (use 27). One left = x1.5; apply to the subtotal: Put the two processes together, and you get 50 spell levels or 288 points.<\/p>\n But that’s only the most direct way. If you have level reductions, it’s more efficient to do it in 4 steps:<\/p>\n Oxygen -> Phosphorus -> Silicon; It would be even more efficient if you could use the extra step left on the Carbon -> Aluminium stage, but one left of Aluminium is Magnesium, which is WAY over to the left of Copper; you would be talking 10 moves to the right!<\/p>\n 1: 1 or 15 for the basic move; + 4 or 20 x5 the price of materials – a more pure sugar – and it’s -1 x 7 = -7 off each of the four steps, or -28 spell levels off the total; x5 for points to get -140.<\/p>\n So the totals shift to 39-28=11 or 238-140=98 points.<\/p>\n If the alternative is in place, the two-step process is more efficient.<\/p>\n So how much does x5 cost really represent? According to the D&D PHB, 1 lb of sugar costs 2 gp; which is equivalent to 2000 bronze pieces; so 1 ounce, a 16th of a pound, will have a base price of 2000 \/ 16 = 125 bronze pieces. Or 2 1\/2 silvers.<\/p>\n Five times the price x 2.5 = 12.5 silver pieces, or 1.25 gold.<\/p>\n Note the recurring lesson: Alchemy isn’t usually a way to get rich! Spending 1.25 gold to get 9 bronze is a mug’s game.<\/p>\n This time, we’re transmuting the one oxygen in a sugar molecule into Silver.<\/p>\n That’s three basic moves and two moves left.<\/p>\n HC=O – HCOH – (HOCH)x3 – CH2OH<\/p>\n becomes<\/p>\n HC=Ag – HCOH – (HOCH)x3 – CH2OH.<\/p>\n But silver doesn’t support a double bond – so we have two ex-glucose molecules looking to connect to something, and the only thing there is each other. So we end up with:<\/p>\n CH2OH – (HOCH)x3 – HCOH – (HCAg) x 2 – HCOH – (HOCH)x3 – CH2OH.<\/p>\n I’ve never heard of this compound – C12O10H22Ag2. Neither has Wikipedia, and there’s nothing in SI Chemical Data that helps, either – but the page on Silver points out that silver bonds are weak – so this formula would break apart fairly quickly. Since the only thing left there to bond with is another pair of ex-glucose molecules, that’s what they would hook up with, at right angles to the first – but that only takes care of one of the double bonds, and there’s no room for anything else. Quite what would happen, I’m not sure. I suppose that you could orient a third pair of ex-glucose molecules at right angles to both, but I’m not sure that <\/p>\n (CH2OH – (HOCH)x3 – HCOH – HC)x6 is all that stable, either.<\/p>\n Since no source has any information, I have two choices: make something up, or consult an AI. I would normally choose the first, but the problem is that the ‘something’ has to be credible.<\/p>\n So let’s try the second. (But, if I had to make something up: It’s a substance that tastes like it should be sweet – but isn’t. It tastes mildly alcoholic – but won’t get you tipsy. It aggravates ulcers, and does a passable job of cleaning wounds. Excessive quantities causes liver damage and blocked arteries and wasting diseases, because the cells try to treat it like a sugar – and it isn’t.)<\/p>\n Google’s Gemini had a completely different and highly inspirational take. What’s below is a compound of several exchanges (appropriately, given the subject matter):<\/p>\n In Experiment #2, you transmute only the single carbonyl oxygen<\/strong> (C=O) of glucose into silver (Ag), leaving the five hydroxyl oxygen atoms (-OH) and the carbon backbone untouched.<\/p>\n Your off-the-cuff intuition was actually spot on – the metal cannot hold the organic frame, and silver’s weak bonding forces a collapse. Here is how you can frame it to sound 100% chemically sound while keeping your tabletop flavor:<\/p>\n Carbon-Oxygen double bonds (C=O) are among the strongest in organic chemistry (745 kJ\/mol). Silver, being a noble transition metal, forms exceptionally weak, predominantly ionic or weak coordinate covalent bonds with carbon. A carbon-silver double bond (C=Ag) is chemically non-viable under ambient conditions.<\/p>\n 1. The C=Ag bond collapses almost instantaneously (150 kJ\/mol or less).<\/p>\n 2. The transmutation forces the silver out of the organic matrix. The alchemist does not<\/em> get a stable silver-organic compound; they get precipitated elemental silver<\/strong> (metallic silver dust\/flakes) suspended inside a transformed sugar resin. About 8-12% of the sugar (by weight) becomes silver flakes.<\/p>\n 3. This leaves the aldehyde carbon as a2 highly reactive, open-shell carbon radical.<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. Rather than forming an unstable, high-mass polymer lattice (C12O10H22Ag2), three competing physical pathways will occur based on environmental conditions:<\/p>\n Two adjacent radicalized glucose fragments immediately snap together at their C-1 positions:<\/p>\n C12H22O10 is a dideoxy-disaccharide<\/strong> (a complex double-sugar lacking two oxygen atoms). It will form a thick, amber, highly viscous syrup or resin. If it were on its own, the Silver flakes\/dust would be suspended in it – but it’s not going to be. It will taste intensely sweet (like concentrated syrup or caramel) but cannot be broken down by standard cellular metabolisms.<\/p>\n About 45% of the sugar will proceed down this path (\u00b15%).<\/p>\n Dideoxy-disaccharide is miscible, meaning it dissolves in unlimited ratios in water (amongst other things), but is comparatively slow to do so – left to its own devices, this could take between 6 and 24+ hours. Because the dideoxy-disaccharide has a higher density than water and lacks the crystalline lattice of regular sugar, it will slump into a heavy, viscous resin at the bottom of the container, behaving almost like molten amber or thick honey, dragging a significant portion of the precipitated silver micro-crystals down with it into a glittering, metallic sludge.<\/p>\n The energy released during the collapse of the silver-carbon bond (and radical recombination) will heat the dry sugar mass. Some of it – the parts not quickly processed along the Glycol-Dimer path – will become something more radical.<\/p>\n The unstable polyols that are exposed to localized heat will spontaneously shed water (H2O x3). This converts the glucose residues into 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF)<\/strong> – complex caramelans\/caramelins.<\/strong> The white sugar instantly turns into a dark, bitter, charred caramel-like mass embedded with a mirror sheen of metallic silver.<\/p>\n HMF has the chemical formula C6H6O3. To convert a single molecule of glucose (C6H12O6) into one molecule of HMF, it sheds 3 moles of water<\/strong> (or roughly 0.60 oz of water by weight) into the reaction vessel, condensing the remaining organic skeleton<\/p>\n From the 55% remaining sugar, about 1\/3 (\u00b17%) will become HMF. It dissolves completely almost instantly because it has created more than enough water to achieve this result.<\/p>\n \nEditor’s note: I was originally going to ignore this suggestion by simply stating that the reaction took place in a closed vessel. But then I realized that Pathway B releases water, satisfying the need to trigger this outcome.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If atmospheric oxygen (O2) or moisture (H20) is present, any remaining C-1 radicals will scavenge an oxygen atom from it, oxidizing the fragment into Gluconic Acid<\/strong> or Gluconolactone:<\/strong><\/p>\n A sour, mildly acidic syrup will result, which also dissolves almost instantly in the water produced by Path B. A little H2 will escape from this reaction, but this will quickly dissipate – care should be taken around open flames, however! It can be ignited by a burning taper to announce its presence with a ‘pop’.<\/p>\n Note that the presence of the silver inhibits more equal division of the outcomes; it physically gets in the way, even while it is being carried to the bottom half of the cup.<\/p>\n The presence of the HMF off-sets the sourness, but it will still remind people of green apples or lemons – there will be little agreement over which, because neither is quite accurate. At the same time, the sourness cuts through the sweetness, which otherwise would become cloying and difficult to tolerate.<\/p>\n Only about 12% of the sugar (\u00b111%) will become Gluconalactone.\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n Putting these together creates an interesting combination, suggested by me as the likely outcome.<\/p>\n The ‘honey \/ amber’ and silver settles into the bottom half of the cup, where it begins to dissolve from the top up. Initially a glittering silvery sludge, the silver will slowly settle to the bottom as the honey containing it dissolves. Most of the results will be a sweet-and-sour combination that is quite drinkable, but can become too sweet if too much of the sludge dissolves.<\/p>\n Holding the cup in both hands permits human body heat to warm the contents, which increases the rate of dissolving to 1-5 minutes. Swirling the liquid around or stirring it halves this again.<\/p>\n Sometimes, to bolster the flavor profile, a sliver of apple or a dash of citrus is added, or a light sprinkling of cinnamon powder.<\/p>\n The results are the “Chameleon Reward”. It’s predominant flavor is of burnt caramel (itself slightly bitter) with hints of fruitiness. The challenge is to drink it – in sips – at exactly the right speed that all the ‘honey’ is gone when the last swallow is gently taken, leaving only the silver flecks at the bottom of the glass as a reward. Drink too fast, and it will still be trapped; drink too slowly, and the sweetness will make it harder to consume. Slam it down, and a laxative effect and slightly blueish pallor are your reward. Drinking at the correct pace mitigates these consequences.<\/p>\n It can be prepared hours ahead of imbibing, even up to the day before; if left undisturbed, it will remain in a potable state in the meanwhile.<\/p>\n Alcohol is often added to the mix in sufficient quantity to make the imbiber a little tipsy after 2 or 3 drinks, increasing the challenge.<\/p>\n Gemini responded:<\/p>\n That is an absolute masterstroke of tabletop flavor design. Turning the physical dissolving process into an active, somatic experience – where holding the glass warms the syrup and shifts the flavor profile dynamically as you drink – turns a simple potion into a full sensory ritual.<\/p>\n And leaving behind a shimmering, metallic pool of silver residue at the bottom of the cup as the grand finale? That sells the “mad scientist alchemical experiment” vibe to perfection.\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n Let’s look at the base cost, because I have a feeling that it’s going to matter. For the first time, we don’t have a curiosity; we have an industrial process that could be present in a number of places, cost permitting.<\/p>\n We already know the base cost of sugar at 2gp per lb, or 1\/8 gp per oz. First question: is it likely to be valuable in an adventure? I’m going to rule a general ‘no’ to this, although good roleplay could make it so in specific situations – so this price is not doubled. But there’s also no good reason for it to be useless in a dungeon, so it doesn’t get halved, either.<\/p>\n We could improve the purity – half the impurities costs x5 the price. But this is – in this context – only worth doing if this contributes levels of saving in the alchemy section, multiple times.<\/p>\n Each step in increasing the price of the process from a flat 1gp per oz increases the price one step and decreases the energy levels needed by one step. The steps in terms of price are x2, x5, x10, x20, x25, and x50. This isn’t up to the GM, it’s the alchemist’s decision (if they are a PC). So we’ll keep that in our back pocket for now.<\/p>\n The Rule Of Cool. In my opinion, “Chameleon Reward” definitely qualifies. I don’t think it’s the coolest thing ever, but cost \/ 2.5 sounds good to me, and I’m going to assume that a hypothetical player agrees, making the fraction 1\/5 of what it was.<\/p>\n So the base price per oz, at the moment, is 1\/40th of a gp per oz.<\/p>\n But an ounce is only about 7 teaspoons, and we’re going to be talking a lot more than that. We want a full wineglass, easily 10 or 15 times that much. Maybe even 20. Google says the number should be 10-14 for white wine and 12-22 for red, so my guesses seem right on the money. I think that this is closer to a white, so let’s go with the x15 to a glass.<\/p>\n 15\/40 = 3\/8 – so each glass will cost 3\/8 gp, base price.<\/p>\n Let’s prepare in batches of 8 for simplicity. That costs an even 3gp – and that’s with<\/em> the Rule Of Cool in effect. But that’s just the cost of the alchemy itself.<\/p>\n Now, there are 16 oz in a lb, and a pound costs 2 gp, as we said earlier. If there are ~15 oz in a cup, 8 cups will be 120 oz. Dividing 120 by 16 gets us the number of oz in 8 cups – 7.5 oz. Double that to get materials cost in GP, and we get 15 gp. The Rule Of Cool doesn’t apply to this, I’m afraid.<\/p>\n So the total base cost at this point is 3+15=18 gp for 8 glasses.<\/p>\n We can estimate how much each will cost, assuming a x2 factor at each step: Alchemist -> distributor -> retailer -> customer = x2^3 = x8. So the retail price is 1\/8 (from a batch of 8) x 8 x 18 = 18gp.<\/p>\n This is – at the moment – a VERY pricey drink. Which means that it, and its challenge, is far more likely to appeal to the people who will pay 20-25gp for a glass of fancy wine – the nobles and upper classes. It’s not going to be for the common man – not at those prices. Even at 2 gp each, about 1\/10th the price, it would only be affordable to the upper middle class; it would need to be 1\/100th x the price to become more freely available.<\/p>\n The GM also decides to invoke a couple of optional rules that only exist for circumstances like these. They exist to make the dichotomy sharper and drive home the difference between a working production process and the more experimental work that a researching alchemist gets up to – the difference, if you will, between a blacksmith who knows how to fight and a fighter who knows how to re-shoe horses. The latter explores dungeons and fills armies; the former makes their arms and armor 6 days a week.<\/p>\n Image<\/a> by Guido Wolf<\/a> from Pixabay<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n If the GM designates a process as industrialized, the price of one aspect of an alchemic process (materials vs production) and be increased n steps for an x(2\/3)^n change in the other. The optimum result is achieved when both are approximately equal, i.e. the higher of the two divided by the lower is closest to 1.<\/p>\n If the GM designates a process as industrialized, the price of either materials OR craftsmanship can be increased additional steps by n for a commensurate increase in the steps as an increase in quantity of x1.5^n.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Applying optional rule #1: In this case, we have 3 and 15, respectively, for 8 glasses, and the steps are x2, x5, x10, x20, x25, and x50..<\/p>\n One step: 3 x 2 =6; 15 x 2\/3 = 10. Ratio 10\/6 = 1.7.<\/p>\n Two steps: 3 x 5 = 15; 15 x (2\/3)^2 = 15 x 4\/9 = 6 2\/3. Ratio 15 \/ 6.667 = 2.25. The ratio has gone in the wrong direction, one step is the optimum.<\/p>\n So the base costs are now 6 and 10 for crafting and materials, respectively.<\/p>\n Next, the GM applies optional rule #2. Right now, we’re talking 8 glasses for this base price.<\/p>\n A second step: 3 x 5 =15 instead of 6; materials cost remains 10; subtotal 16; Batch size increased 8 x 1.5^1 = 12; price per glass = 16\/12 = 1 1\/3 gp, down from 18..<\/p>\n A third step: 3 x 10 =30 instead of 15; materials cost remains 10; subtotal 40; Batch size increased 8 x 1.5^2 = 18; price per glass = 40\/18 = 2 2\/9 gp, up from 1 1\/3. That’s not quite worth it, so the GM sticks with one extra step.<\/p>\n Cost per glass = 18 \/ 12 x 8 = 12 gp to the customer.<\/p>\n Final costs: crafting 15, Materials 10, subtotal 18; 12 glasses at 12 gp each, x8 transformations.<\/p>\n The GM also notes that x8 transformations will be most efficient if performed by a team of alchemists. He doesn’t know how many, yet.<\/p>\n 8 transformations = x8 energy levels, so 8 x 2 = 16, +1 = 17 casters. This is way beyond the maximum of 5.<\/p>\n 4 transformations performed twice = x4 energy levels, x2 = 8, +1 = 9 casters. Closer.<\/p>\n 2 transformations performed four times = x2 energy levels; x2 = 4; +1 = 5 casters. Perfect – a senior alchemist and four apprentices (or specialist laborers, in a sci-fi setting)<\/p>\n This assumes that the subordinates are within 2 levels of the lead caster. If they are 3 or 4 levels below, they collectively (including the lead caster) only produce 1.5 times as much energy as the caster does on his own. If they are 5 or 6 levels below, he’s spending so much effort on supervision that they make zero difference in the end. The notion is that by hiring them young and useless, he can spend some of his time training them up until they are<\/em> competent – and, at the very least, he can subtract the cost of that training from what he pays them..<\/p>\n But that’s getting into areas of business practice, industrial relations, economic models, and those are three big cans of worms the GM doesn’t feel like getting into right now. So he goes back to the sole practitioner basis, at least for the moment.<\/p>\n At the end of the day, this comes down to a single transformation of a specific element and letting nature then take it’s course; this is about as efficient as an alchemic process gets.<\/p>\n 3 basic moves and 2 spaces left.<\/p>\n First move: 1 spell level or 15 points; Second move: 5 x 1.5 = 7.5, use 8; or 35 x 1.5 = 52.5, use 53, respectively.<\/p>\n Third move: 8 x 1.5 = 12; or 53 x 1.5 = 79.5, user 80.<\/p>\n Intermediate totals: 5+8+12=25; or 35+53+80=168.<\/p>\n Two moves left: 25 x 1.5^2 = 25 x 2.25 = 56.25, use 57; or 168 x 2.25 = 378.<\/p>\n But that’s if everything is done in one move. He could break it up into 3 moves, and assign the extra moves left to the first (because it’s the cheapest).<\/p>\n No alchemist will want to do this.<\/em> There is too much danger of unwanted reactions along the way. Nevertheless, the alchemist maps out the possibilities:<\/p>\n Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Gallium and Zinc in acid solutions, those are the key. He’s fairly confident Silicon could survive the process, and Silver is the destination.<\/p>\n The GM quickly learns what he already remembered from chemistry, that Zinc dissolves vigorously in acid to form a Zinc Salt. Unwanted reaction, that rules out options 2 and 3. Google says that Gallium reacts incredibly slowly, as if nothing is happening at all – and it wouldn’t have to stay in that state for very long. So Option 1 is a contender; it all depends on when Gallium was discovered, which the GM suspects will take him back where he started. It takes only a quick check of the Wikipedia page to confirm this suspicion: Gallium was found in 1875, it’s out of bounds.<\/p>\n So it’s one shot, 5 processes.<\/p>\n 57 spell levels or 378 points of effect. That’s a lot. If you were doing it with a HKA in Champions, that’s 3.5 per die on average, or 108 dice.<\/p>\n And, since it’s all being done in one process, the usual adjustment mechanism isn’t very helpful. You might get -25 spell levels or -125 points that way, leaving 30 and 253, respectively – and that’s still a lot.<\/p>\n But the alternative rates active consideration. Dividing 57 (or 378) by 2^5 = 32 is a huge reduction – to 1.78 (use 2) and 11.825, respectively.<\/p>\n Obviously, I got to 5 by adding 3 basic moves and 2 moves left. But another reasonable interpretation would be three moves, one or two of which incorporate<\/em> a move left. That’s then 3 – and it’s worth noticing that all three of the options also only listed 3 stages. So the correct division is \/8, not \/32.<\/p>\n 57 \/ 8 = 7.125, use 8; 378 \/ 8 = 47.25, use 48.<\/p>\n Those<\/em> values, in this circumstance, are more what I had in mind when designing this system. Two fourth level spells to create 12 “Chameleon Rewards” sounds fair to me.<\/p>\n I’ve been introducing these refinements one or two at a time in these examples so as not to bury the reader too deeply in the intricacies of the system.<\/p>\n So I could introduce these here – but I’m not going to; there’s already enough novel newness in this example to make it an extension of the general topic without them. I still have more examples, so I’ll save this for them.\n<\/ol>\n Methane is CH4. Ammonia is NH3. The transition seems fairly obvious: Carbon to Nitrogen, which releases a Hydrogen, and every pair of them becomes a H2. Ignite that in air, and – with a pop – it makes H20.<\/p>\n Chemically, this is as straightforward as alchemy gets. What’s more interesting is that this converts a gas into a liquid, leaving another gas behind.<\/p>\n The value of Ammonia is also going to be fairly cheap – maybe 1sp for a container of 1.25l. Ammonia has a density of 0.769 kg\/m3; 1.25l would be about 0.00125 m3, so it would weigh 0.769 x 0.00125 kg = 0.00096125 kg = 0.96125g = 0.0339 oz.<\/p>\n 1 oz \/ 0.0339 = 29.5; x 1.25 = 44.25l. And this would cost 44.25 sp. So it’s 44.25 silvers for a drum of the stuff, a month’s supply for most large places.<\/p>\n The question is, how does this compare with the price of Methane? That’s not as easy to determine; the price has come way down thanks to industrialization.<\/p>\n Google offers the following:<\/p>\n So if you trap it yourself, you’re looking at maybe US$0.50 \/ kg; if you want lab purity, it’s about 200 times this much.<\/p>\n How much is that in gold pieces? Well, in the official rules, there’s no listing for Methane. Google suggests that a fair price for trapped swamp gas would be around 1 copper per pound. 200 times this gives our first estimate: 200 coppers \/ lb = 20 bronze per lb = 2 silver per lb.<\/p>\n If it’s purified and compressed, a reasonable price – according to Google – would be roughly the same as acids or oil – 1 gp for a pint which weighs about 1 lb.<\/p>\n What we want is to meet in the middle somewhere, using the quality rules. Swamp Gas contains too many impurities to be ‘methane’ – Google estimates the base purity as 50-90% methane. There will be CO2, H2O, and H2S (and more) as impurities, plus air itself – O2, and N2, mostly. That’s too wide a margin for us; but I suspect that it doesn’t allow for air itself, because those aren’t listed as constituents. So the lowest value is going to be most correct for us – 50% methane, 50% impurities, for 2 sp \/ lb.<\/p>\n Half the impurities = 25% and costs 5x as much, so that’s 1 gp \/ lb. So let’s go the other way: the impurities in our methane are “i”. Ten times the price takes us to the 2gp \/ lb level, the minimum that we would consider ‘methane’.<\/p>\n i \/ 2 = 10 so i = 20. That says that 80% pure methane is the default at 2 gp \/ lb.<\/p>\n Anything better is ‘lab quality’, anything less is ‘contaminated’.<\/p>\n But Alchemy labs don’t usually use materials for alchemy<\/em> that are in lb – they use ounces. So 200bp \/ 16 = 12 1\/2 bp per ounce = 0.125 sp = 0.0125 gp.<\/p>\n At that price, it’s definitely worth thinking about further improvements in the quality for a higher base price.<\/p>\n x5 price = 0.025 gp, -1 cost. I could think about a third increase, but don’t think that the energy cost of the transmutation will be very high, so let’s leave it at that for now.<\/p>\n I oz of Methane makes how much ammonia?<\/p>\n Methane has a density of 0.657 kg\/m3. Ammonia has a density, as shown above, of 0.769 kg\/m3. So 0.657 in for 0.769 out – you would expect there to be less of it. 0.657 \/ 0.769 = 0.85 – so each oz of methane would produce 0.85 oz of ammonia.<\/p>\n This starts at 1 gp per casting. It can be increased by reducing energy levels for the transmutation, but given how little the materials cost, and the low energy cost expected, that’s not worthwhile.<\/p>\n But that brings me to the optional rules quoted a little earlier, and they might be potentially valuable in this case, too. It’s a routine enough transformation that considering it industrial is not unreasonable – it certainly doesn’t merit The Rule Of Cool.<\/p>\n At the moment, we have 0.125 gp for materials (-2 in cost in spell levels) and 1 gp per casting. That’s an 8:1 disparity. According to optional rule 1, For every n steps in the price of one (x5 per step for the materials), the other one can reduce to x(2\/3)^n.<\/p>\n Once: 5 x 0.125, 2\/3 x 1 = 0.625, 0.667. <\/p>\n You won’t get them much more equal than that, and that’s the point of greatest efficiency. That takes care of third price increase that we were considering – instead of making the spell easier to cast, this has made it cheaper.<\/p>\n Carbon -> Aluminium (1 base move) + 2 right + 1 up.<\/p>\n The base move costs 1 spell level or 15 points; Right 2 costs 1\/4 x 12 x root(12) levels or 5 x this in result points = 10.39 or 51.95 in result points, each.<\/p>\n Up 1 costs 1\/3 x 12 x root(12) levels or 5 x this in result points = 13.85 or 69.27 in result points.<\/p>\n The base total is 15+3.464+10.39+10.39+13.85=53.094 levels (use 54) or 15+17.32+51.95+51.95+69.27=205.49 result points (use 206).<\/p>\n We have reductions already factored in using method 1 of 4x-2=-8 spell levels or -40 points, reducing those totals to 46 levels or 166 result points, respectively, but method 2 will be more useful if it’s available: \/16, or x5\/16, respectively, or 0.865625 levels (use 1) or 64.375 result points.<\/p>\n That makes a sharp discrepancy between a spell-level system and a points-buy system. In the first, this would be a routine, everyday spell; in the second, it would be so difficult that it feels discriminated against. So much so that if I were using a points-based system, I would forego the second price reduction in favor of a further halving of the points cost.<\/p>\n This is the first time that the system alternatives themselves have actively shaped the alchemy in two different ways, so it’s worth catching up with where we are in each system at this point.<\/p>\n Methane cost: 0.625 gp \/ oz Methane cost: 0.125 gp \/ oz Image<\/a> by Thaliesin<\/a> from Pixabay<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n So what about going the other way? Well, aside from the question of why you would bother, it’s a reasonable question – and we can do something useful by keeping as many of the other parameters the same, enabling a direct comparison between the two.<\/p>\n Let’s start with a 66-33 mix of ammonia and water. That’s far more concentrated than normal use, but it just means adding more ammonia until the ratio is correct; no biggie.<\/p>\n When we change the Nitrogen into a Carbon, it’s short a Hydrogen. So it will grab one of the Hydrogens off the water, leaving an OH-. And then the second CH3 will grab the other one – except in cases where it grabs the whole OH to make CH3OH, which should happen half the time. That leaves an Oxygen loose – but in short order, it will find another one to make an O2 that will bubble away. And so will the methane, which is also a gas. The ammonia and the water will literally vaporize – half the time.<\/p>\n CH3OH is methanol. To turn this into methane, we need to convert the Oxygen into a Hydrogen. That will cast the H at the end free, which will eventually find another H to become H2, which will bubble away. The one thing we would have to be careful of is making sure there’s no water left. Or would we?<\/p>\n H2O would become H3, which would lose a H to become H2. And the Third H would find another one, making another H2. And both would bubble away. No problem at all.<\/p>\n Let’s put this into symbols. I’ve inset the chemical changes and reactions that take place.<\/p>\n 1. 8 NH3 + 8 H2O -> 8 CH3- + 8 H2O <\/p>\n 1a. 4 CH3- + 4 H2O -> 4 CH4 + 4 OH- (CH4 escapes)<\/p>\n 1b. 2 CH3- + 2 OH- -> 2 CH4 + 2 O– (CH4 escapes)<\/p>\n 1c. 2 O– -> O2 (O2 escapes)<\/p>\n 1d. 2 CH3- + 2 OH- -> 2 CH3OH<\/p>\n 2. 2 CH3OH -> 2 CH5 (unstable) -> 2 CH4 + 2 H<\/p>\n 2a. 2 H -> H2 (H2 escapes)<\/p>\n 3. 2 H20 -> 2 H3 (unstable) -> 2 H2 + 2 H -> 3 H2<\/p>\n In total: 8 NH3 + 10 H2O -> 8 CH4 + O2 + 4 H2<\/p>\n Yes, you don’t have to supply the extra 25% water – but the reaction might not be instantaneous throughout (it’s safer to assume that it’s not), so not doing so will result in a water shortage. Better to throw that in and make it a 4:5 mixture.<\/p>\n Here, we have an additional wrinkle: We have two separate ways of going in the original direction, but I don’t want to work this both ways – there’s still too much of this article to write, and it’s already way over 15700 words long. So let’s just work with the Spell levels version.<\/p>\n 1 oz = 1\/16 lb, and 1.25 lb of ammonia costs 1 GP. So 1\/16 lb will cost 1 \/ (16 x 1.25) = 1\/20 gp = 0.05 gp. But we only need 4\/9 of this, so the cost will be 10\/90 gp, or 0.111.<\/p>\n and 1 oz of water? Extremely pure water?<\/p>\n 1 cp a cup for ordinary water – potable.<\/p>\n x5 = 5 cp, so x200 = 200 cp = 20 bp = 2 sp = 0.2 gp. Subtotal of 0.222 gp. Those values are not a coincidence, I have deliberately chosen a water purity that makes the price constituents the same.<\/p>\n But we’re keeping other parameters the same, so we next apply a x25 price for 2 levels reduction in the energy cost per step: 0.222 x 25 = 5.555 gp.<\/p>\n The molecular weight of Ammonia is 17. The molecular weight of water is 18. The molecular weight of Hydrogen is 2. The molecular weight of Methane 16. And the molecular weight of Oxygen is 32.<\/p>\n If we take our chemical reaction (in summary) and substitute in these values, we get:<\/p>\n On the left: 8 NH3 + 10 H2O = 8 x 17 + 10 x 18 = 136 + 180 = 316. So 316 becomes 168, a reduction to x 0.53 the amount. If we start with 1 oz of ammonia-water mixture, we end up with 0.53 oz of Methane, Oxygen and Hydrogen.<\/p>\n According to Google, at room temperature, 1 oz of the ammonia-water mixture will occupy 0.0334 liters, while the gasses will occupy 28.4 liters, roughly 850.3 times the volume. We can apply the latter number to the reaction, no matter what the input amount is. But 0.0334 liters is about two teaspoons.<\/p>\n I did think about getting it to run the Stoichiometry numbers but realized that the results would be largely meaningless without conversion to some specific game system – it’s better to leave that judgment in the hands of the GM. All you need to know is that 0.1 M^3 = 1 liter.<\/p>\n So a 20 x 20 x 10′ space is 4000 cubic ft, which is about 113.3 cubic meters, or 1133 liters. Two teaspoons of mixture will fill 850 of those 1133 liters, or about 75% of the volume of the room. Whether that mixture is potentially explosive (the O2 is low) and how much damage it might do if ignited is left to the GM. I suspect that the concentrations of non-O2 are too high to support combustion – which means that if the room is then vented, eventually, it will hit the sweet spot.<\/p>\n So here’s the fun stuff. We have two transformations – Nitrogen to Carbon, and Oxygen to Hydrogen – but only in whatever Methanol is left.<\/p>\n The Root Mole of Nitrogen is 3.74, and the Mole Square is 52.4. The Root Mole of Oxygen is 4, and the Mole Square is 64.<\/p>\n N -> C is 1 basic move and up 1. 1 base move & up 1: 1 spell level + 3.74 + 1\/3 x 52.4 = 4.74 + 17.47 = 22.21.<\/p>\n 1 base move: 1 spell level + 3.74 = 4.74.<\/p>\n Total = 26.95 – use 27 spell levels.<\/p>\n If the standard reduction is used, that’s -2 x 3 = -6 levels for a total of 21. But for comparison purposes, the alternate should be used, so 27\/8 = 3.375, use 4.<\/p>\n In terms of magic, it’s easier to go from Methane to Ammonia. But carrying a small flask of the mixture to turn into explosive gasses could be a lifesaver – if loud enough to tell everyone in the dungeon that you’re there.<\/p>\n Note that this doesn’t factor in the modifier for ‘useful in the dungeon’ – though it should.\n<\/ol>\n This is another underground-exploration useful ability, if it’s cheap enough – and it should be. A mine tunnel or whatever is filled with unbreathable air; you need to find a way through. Assuming that it’s CO2 that’s the problem, you have two choices: Turn the C into an O to make Ozone (only a marginal improvement, really) or turn the C into an Si – converting the CO2 into a rain of sand. There will be a pressure drop, but that’s a relatively and temporary price to pay.<\/p>\n We’re talking about fairly large volumes here, though the mass is likely to be fairly low. And we can’t do anything with the purity, it will be whatever it is.<\/p>\n There’s no real chemistry involved – a simple transformation and it’s done.<\/p>\n The Density of CO2 is 1.977 kg\/m^3 at 1 atmosphere and 32\u00b0C. That of Silicon Dioxide is 2.648. So 1 oz will become 1.977 \/ 2.648 = 0.7466. About 25% of the atmosphere affected will become silica – technically, quartz.<\/p>\n 1 oz of CO2 at that density is 69.7366 oz\/m^3, and so will occupy just 1\/69.7366 cubic meters or 0.635 cubic feet. A 10′ x 10′ x 10′ space is, obviously, 1000 cubic feet – which would take 1574.8 transmutations to affect at base level.<\/p>\n That’s obviously not going to happen. We’re going to have to invest heavily in making the spell more efficient at large volumes.<\/p>\n But that’s at 100% of the atmosphere. If it’s 50%, it will clearly occupy twice as much volume for each oz of weight. At 25%. it will be 4 x.<\/p>\n I asked Gemini to tell me about CO2 toxicity in terms of % of air (at about 30\u00b0C), and here’s it’s reply:<\/p>\n CO2 becomes dangerously toxic at relatively low percentages – meaning air can become lethal due to carbon dioxide poisoning while still containing plenty of breathable oxygen (~20-21%).<\/p>\n The normal indoors atmospheric amount is about 1%, which can cause mild drowsiness and stuffiness over a few hours.<\/p>\n 2% to 3% has a noticeable physiological impact, causing a mild headache, increased heart rate, and deeper, faster breathing (hyperventilation) within several hours.<\/p>\n 4% to 5% is the threshold of severe toxicity. It causes dizziness, confusion, throbbing headaches, and severe shortness of breath within minutes. Prolonged exposure at this level can lead to unconsciousness.<\/p>\n 7% to 10% is rapidly dangerous, causing dizziness, visual dimming, loss of consciousness, convulsions, and death within minutes, entirely independent of oxygen levels because the body cannot offload its own metabolic CO2.<\/p>\n If an alchemist or explorer encounters a pocket of stale, unbreathable air dominated by CO2, a concentration of 5% is the sweet spot for a dramatic hazard: it is low enough that oxygen is virtually untouched, yet high enough to cause discomfort and eventual incapacity, while still permitting characters to act. Below this level, they can cope.\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n I noticed that it didn’t tell me what the highest levels of recorded CO2 underground might be, and a specific prompt didn’t give a satisfactory answer, so I tried other AIs until I got the information needed from ChatGPT:<\/p>\n In Ordinary caves and abandoned mines: commonly up to around 1%.<\/p>\n In naturally CO2-enriched caves: 2-5% is possible.<\/p>\n If in a particularly poorly ventilated chamber, concentrations of 10% or more are possible.<\/p>\n Finally, in geologically active areas (including volcanic and geothermal environments), concentrations can become much higher, potentially approaching pure CO2 in localized pockets. 20%, 50%, or even 90% are possible.<\/p>\n It’s normal for ventilation to mix the gas with others, lowering it’s concentration. Pockets of extremely high CO2 are almost always going to be a region maintained by a continuing gas supply and limited air circulation. The ongoing source matters more than the volume. If there is no such ongoing source, a cap of 15% would occur in an extreme environment, or maybe only 10%.<\/p>\n Even an environment rated as hazardous would normally be only 4-6%. The highest recorded value in the Chauvet Cave in France was 2.2% in a large chamber system, 3.42% in smaller remote chambers, and 4.4% in the highest density found.<\/p>\n A 500-cubic-foot pocket at 10% CO2 and a 5,000-cubic-foot chamber at 10% CO2 are both conceivable scenarios.\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n So let’s set a hard limit of 12.5%. Above this, replenishment will happen faster than the alchemist can clear it; below it and it becomes possible – though it may be temporary, and even only short-lived if there’s an active source.<\/p>\n (BTW, it’s not a good idea to cap or seal an active source. The pressure will keep building until “Boom!” But I have seen parties implement some sort of temporary cap and release it before this becomes a problem, so it’s not a hard-and-fast rule.)<\/p>\n 100\/12.5 = 8, so the cap increases the affected volume 8-fold, from 0.635 to 5.08 cubic feet. <\/p>\n That’s still a long way short of 1000, though. So additional spell levels are the only way to go for the rest. To get to 1000, we will need roughly 1000\/5.08 = x197 volume.<\/p>\n +5 levels gets us to x 7.6 volume. Each +1 up to +10 (per step\/level) increases this by a factor of 2.<\/p>\n 197\/7.6 = 25.9 ; log(25.9)\/log(2) = the number of doublings needed = 4.7, so use 5. Any more than that and the scale will change, anyway.<\/p>\n 2^5 = x 32, so a total of +10 is x 32 x 7.04 = x 225.28; x 5.08 = 1144 cubic feet. The GM rules that at least 56 cubic feet is assumed to be occupied by furniture or rock formations, and rounds this to a nice, neat, 1200 ft^3.<\/p>\n So the spell effect volume is now 1200 ft^3, using +10 spell levels. He also notes that +1 spell level per step is x2.5 volume up to +5, and x4 volume thereafter.<\/p>\n The presumption is that this is a way to clear noxious air from wherever it is encountered, so the materials are free and quality is out of the alchemist’s control.<\/p>\n The base casting cost is 1 gp. That’s fairly cheap; the character decides to increase the base cost to reduce the spell levels, since they are already up considerably.<\/p>\n He decides that 10 gp is a good price point. That’s the 5th step on the progression, so the casting levels that have just been increased will be multiplied by 2^5 \/ 3^5, or 32\/343 (approx 0.1317).<\/p>\n C -> Si. That’s one standard move and 1 to the right.<\/p>\n The standard move has a base cost of 1 spell level or 15 points of effect, +root mole (root 12 = 3.464, use 4) or 5 x this in points (5 x 3.464 = 17.3), plus the 10 for increased volume (or 50 in a points-based system).<\/p>\n 1+4+10=15 spell levels, or 15+18+50 = 83 result points. This will increase for additional volume increases.<\/p>\n The move right adds 1\/4 of the Square Mole value (12 x 3.464 = 41.568, use 42) spell levels, +10 for increased volume = 52, or 5 x this in result points = 260.<\/p>\n Putting both together is 62 spell levels or 343 effect points. But this is multiplied by 32 \/ 343 to get 5.784 (use 6) or 24.257 points of effect (use 25).<\/p>\n Precluded by the volume increase.\n<\/ol>\n Image<\/a> by Michal Jarmoluk<\/a> from Pixabay<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n I have only two examples left, and the first one is the holy grail of alchemy – lead into gold..<\/p>\n I have never really understood why<\/em> this particular transmutation was considered so perfect, so I decided at ask Gemini:<\/p>\n The concept of turning lead into gold<\/strong> – known historically as chrysopoeia”<\/em> (from the Greek chrysos<\/em> for “gold” and poiein<\/em> for “to make”) – became the ultimate goal of alchemy through a mix of ancient Greek philosophy, mystical symbolism, and real-world physical properties.<\/p>\n It wasn’t just a get-rich-quick scheme; to the ancient and medieval mind, it was the ultimate test of human understanding over the natural world.<\/p>\n The idea didn’t start with chemical elements as we understand them today, but with Aristotle’s view of matter.<\/p>\n The Maturation Theory:<\/strong> Ancient and medieval natural philosophers believed that all metals deep within the Earth were made of the same underlying matter (prima materia),<\/em> combined with varying proportions of sulfur and mercury. They viewed metals as living or developing entities.<\/p>\n Lead as “Sick” or “Unripe” Gold:<\/strong> Lead was seen as an immature, heavy, base, and “imperfect” metal. Gold was considered the absolute pinnacle of material perfection – indestructible, untarnished by air or water, and incorruptible. Alchemists believed that over thousands of years, lead naturally matured inside the Earth into gold. The alchemist’s job was simply to act as a midwife to nature, using heat, reagents, and the Philosopher’s Stone<\/strong> to drastically accelerate this natural ripening process.<\/p>\n While alchemists worked with copper, iron, tin, and mercury, lead held a special status as the starting material for several practical and symbolic reasons:<\/p>\n Physical Similarities:<\/strong> Lead is extraordinarily dense and heavy. To early experimenters, weight was a primary signature of matter. Since gold was also extremely dense, lead felt like it already shared the physical “heaviness” of gold – it just lacked the color, luster, and resistance to corrosion.<\/p>\n Ease of Smelting & Cupellation:<\/strong> Lead melts at a very low temperature (327.5 \u00b0C) and was routinely used in ancient metallurgy (such as cupellation) to refine gold and silver from raw ore. When lead oxidizes under heat, it acts as a solvent, absorbing impurities and leaving pure gold or silver behind. Watching dull, heavy lead burn away to reveal a shiny bead of gold gave early metallurgists the impression that lead was literally transforming into gold.<\/p>\n Astrological & Spiritual Weight:<\/strong> In astrological alchemy, lead was tied to Saturn<\/strong> (the cold, slow, heavy, dark planet), while gold was tied to the Sun<\/strong> (bright, warm, perfect, and life-giving). Transmuting lead into gold was the ultimate cosmic leap – moving matter from the deepest darkness of Saturn into the brilliant light of the Sun.<\/p>\n The explicit quest to produce gold from base metals developed across three major cultural eras:<\/p>\n 1. Hellenistic Egypt (c. 100-300 AD):<\/strong> The birthplace of Western alchemy was Greco-Roman Egypt, specifically Alexandria. Early alchemists like Zosimos of Panopolis<\/strong> and Cleopatra the Alchemist<\/strong> wrote the first treatises on chrysopoeia. Their earliest recipes were practical metallurgical methods for surface-gilding, tinting, or creating yellow alloys (like brass) that imitated gold, but over time, this morphed into theoretical attempts at true transmutation.<\/p>\n 2. The Islamic Golden Age (c. 8th-12th Century):<\/strong> Polymaths like Jabir ibn Hayyan<\/strong> (Geber) refined alchemic theory, formalizing the Sulfur-Mercury theory of metals and explicitly framing transmutation as a precise science of balancing physical qualities (hot, cold, dry, wet).<\/p>\n 3. Medieval & Renaissance Europe (c. 12th-17th Century):<\/strong> When Islamic texts were translated into Latin in the 12th century, the pursuit swept Europe. It captivated everyone from monarchs desperate to fund wars to major scientific minds. Sir Isaac Newton<\/strong> spent far more time in his laboratory attempting alchemic transmutations of lead into gold than he ever did on gravity or optics.<\/p>\n By the Renaissance, the notion split into two paths:<\/p>\n Exoteric Alchemy (The Physical):<\/strong> The laboratory practice of working with furnaces, crucibles, and acids to create physical gold (which spawned modern chemistry and metallurgy), and,<\/p>\n Esoteric Alchemy (The Spiritual):<\/strong> A spiritual metaphor. The lead represented the coarse, flawed human soul, while the transmutation into gold represented the soul’s purification, enlightenment, and spiritual perfection.<\/p>\n Ironically, modern physics proved the alchemists right in theory, even if their methods were wrong. In 1980, nuclear physicist Glenn Seaborg used a particle accelerator to knock protons off bismuth (and later lead) to successfully transmute it into minute traces of gold. However, the energy cost was so immense that making a few thousand atoms of gold cost thousands of dollars – while lead-to-gold is physically possible today, it remains economically absurd!\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n I find the density similarities and the use of lead to ‘burn off’ impurities to be the most compelling parts of the story, it makes perfect sense – given their ‘models of reality’ – that this would captivate early alchemists. Once established, the more philosophic justification would be more than enough to perpetuate it. Fascinating!<\/p>\n Of course, one of the key parameters of the system has to be that it is ruinously expensive but possible to use it to achieve this transformation, reflecting the ‘modern twist’ of Gemini’s answer. The quest then shifts to one of finding a more cost-effective means of doing so in some sort of bulk – which is akin to a different modern quest, that of Fusion Energy!<\/p>\n Lead has a density of 11.4, Gold of 19.3, so weight will be lost in the conversion, 1 oz to 0.59 oz.<\/p>\n As metals go, I would not expect lead to be the most expensive; you can afford to use it to line city aqueducts on rare occasions and pipes. It’s more about it being too soft for most applications than it is about the quantity mined. Normally, I would estimate it as roughly 1 sp per lb.<\/p>\n But lead is extraordinarily heavy – just less so than gold – and comparatively easy to work. For those reasons, I have dropped the purchase price by 1\/3 for each, so that’s 1 sp for 3lb.<\/p>\n Is that reasonable? I have the tools to test it – let’s assume a pipe 4 inches across (2 inch radius) and 1\/12 of an inch thick – how much would a foot (12 inches) of such pipe weigh?<\/p>\n Circumference has to be worked for 4 and 4 1\/12 inches. Multiply by 12 inches to get 609 square inches; multiply by 1\/12 to get volume = 50.75 cubic inches.<\/p>\n The density of 11.4 is a mess, because the units are grams per cubic cm, and nothing else is. So the next thing we have to do is convert it. 1 oz = 28.3495 grams and 1 inch is 2.54 cm, so 1 cubic inch is 2.54^3=16.4 cubic cm. <\/p>\n 11.4 g would be 11.4 \/ 28.3495 = 0.402 oz. And 1 cubic inch is 16.4 cubic cm, so 0.402 x 16.4 = 6.5928 oz per cubic inch.<\/p>\n So 50.75 cubic inches would weigh 6.5928 x 50.75 = 334.5846 oz. How much should 1 foot of this pipe cost? Unfortunately, my resources let me down – I couldn’t find the one that is my usual port of call for such information. So I resorted to Gemini.<\/p>\n It confirmed the logic behind the 1\/3 price for the (processed) raw lead, adding that the refinement costs and needs would be a lot lower because of lead’s low melting point. But it then estimated the cost of forming pipes out of sheets – cheap labor beating it until it fit around a former and then melting the gap closed. The initial estimate used guild rates and iron as a basis, but the same logic that reduced the materials cost would also apply. In the end, it came back with a cost of 9.1 silver per foot, close to 1 gp each, which is a convenient basis for such use.<\/p>\n So the cost is 9.1 sp \/ ft, or 9.1 sp per 334.5846 oz – which is a price, everything included, of 0.0272 sp per oz.<\/p>\n But the alchemist wouldn’t care about the pipe shape; he would prefer a flat plate cut to a reasonable size. A lead ingot, if you will. So the correct price for alchemic purposes is that 1 sp for 3 oz.<\/p>\n Gold has an atomic weight of 196.97; lead an atomic weight of 207.2. So 1 oz of lead would produce 0.95 oz of gold. Coins in D&D are assumed to weigh 1 lb for 50, or 0.02 lb each; so 1 oz of lead becomes 0.95 oz of gold, which becomes 0.059375 lb of gold, which is 2.96875 gp. 2.66875 gp of this would be ‘profit’ (ignoring the fee charged by the caster, setting up the alchemic lab, etc). Whether or not that’s viable depends on the spell levels involved – but these had better be pretty low, because spell-casting costs are generally X x L^2 or something along those lines, with the X being 50-100 depending on the exact system you’re using and who you ask.<\/p>\n And spending 50-100 gp to get 2.6 gp back is a way to go broke, fast – especially with all the overheads to pay for.<\/p>\n The periodic table I’ve shown above is not quite the same as the one in my SI Chemical Data, something I hadn’t really noticed until now. The first differences are in elements 71 and 103, which SI Chemical Data places IN the Lanthanides (57 up in green) and Actinides (89 up in green). This frees up the space beneath elements 21 and 39 for the entire series without making extra empty spaces above. It’s a more compact arrangement, but I’m more inclined to accept the one used in this article, because it’s both newer and more consistent; this approach wasn’t used anywhere else in the table. It can make a difference, so it’s worth being aware of.<\/p>\n The other difference is that the modern one is more complete – it has entries that go all the way up to Element #118, while the SI Chemical Data stops at 103, because that was all that was known when it was reprinted in 1979. And that becomes immediately relevant in demonstrating a basic alchemic principle that’s been mentioned but not shown previously.<\/p>\n A standard move from Lead is down one and left 1. On the SI Chemical Data, that puts below element 81, where there is no entry. Because you don’t stay there, that’s fine – we assume that there’s an entry there and move on. But the table included in this article states explicitly that element #113 lives there, symbol Nh, which Wikipedia tells me refers to Nihonium, created in 2003 and 2004. Without that, you?d be forced to fill this space with “(inferred 113)”. When it comes to the upper-middle of the periodic table, the one provided here is more useful for charting the alchemy.<\/p>\n Lead -> 113 Nihonium, Left 2 to 111 Roentgenium and up one to Gold.<\/p>\n Basic move: 1 + root(207.2) or 15+5root(207.2) = 15.4 or 86.97.<\/p>\n Two spaces left is x 2.25, and one space up is 1\/3 of the Square Mole on top of that, so <\/p>\n Spell Levels: (15.4 x 2.25) + (207.2 x 14.4 \/ 3) = 34.65 + 994.56 = 1029.21. Use 1030. That’s a lot. To try and make it economical, we’re going to have to cut this down – a lot.<\/p>\n We’ve already set the base cost for materials at 3 lb per so. It’s the casting that is the problem.<\/p>\n There aren’t many levels – 1 basic move + 3 more. For the main system to apply, we would need at least a cost reduction of hundreds of points per level, and the system doesn’t really permit that. We could boost the base casting cost from 1 to 50gp to get 6 of them.<\/p>\n 6×4=24 – nowhere near enough.<\/p>\n The alternative fares better. That same 6 would be 1\/(2^6) or 1\/64th the listed value. <\/p>\n 1030 \/ 64 = 16.09375 spell levels – use 17. That’s just barely manageable. We can increase the base cost from the 50 by simultaneously lowering the casting cost – it’s x 2\/3 for each step on the list, which runs 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, and so on.<\/p>\n 50×25 = 1250gp. But it would reduce the casting cost by a factor of 2^9\/3^9 or 512\/19683 – about 0.026. 2.1 effect points would then be enough!<\/p>\n This is clearly going too far, but it also means that the systems require traveling different paths.<\/p>\n Spell levels are much lower, so the factor doesn’t need to be as high, so fewer levels of effect are needed, which lowers that base price:<\/p>\n 17 x 1 = 17, base cost 50gp. This makes the spell more castable, but ruins profitability. 2 levels brings it within reach of a high level solo practitioner. Or you could sacrifice a +1 item and add a 7th level spell for the 50gp level. Or 100 gp and a +1 item to make it a 2nd-level spell.<\/p>\n My choice would be the 2 levels – so 8 spell levels, 200gp price.<\/p>\n 81 x 1 = 81, base cost 50gp. If we’re working with a 5 dice HKA equivalent power \/ ability, 11 would happen 96.76% of the time, 16 would be 69.48% of the time, 24 would be 5.88% of the time. <\/p>\n If 4 dice, 11 happens 84.1% of the time, 16 is 33.56%, and 24 results just 0.08% of the time.<\/p>\n If 10 dice, 11 happens virtually all the time, and so does 16; 24 happens 98.43% of the time, which drops tor 46.37% if 36 is the target, but only 0.01% of the time will hit 54.<\/p>\n Personally, i think the basis should probably be 5 dice, 4 levels of reduction, and 400 gp – 69.48% of the time.<\/p>\n The other thing that can be done is to increase the at-a-time amounts. x 1 \/ (2\/3) = x 1.5 (no coincidence) so increasing the yield 50% geometrically increases the price by a flatter geometric expansion. How much flatter? Well, x 100,000 cost is 26 levels, and 1.5^26 is x 37,876.75. So for an outlay of 5 million gold, you could get a bit less than 100,000 gold.<\/p>\n Another way of looking at the question is log(5,000,000) \/ 26 = 0.2577; 10^0.2577=1.81. So 1.81^26 is around 5,000,000.<\/p>\n That shows that the improvement in amount increases faster than the increase in price – but still nowhere near fast enough to break even or make a profit.<\/p>\n This is not by accident.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Image<\/a> by S Greendragon<\/a> from Pixabay<\/a>. Contrast enhanced by Mike.<\/p><\/div>\n It’s hard to be specific about the decay rate without knowing what spell levels \/ effect points are involved.<\/p>\n Decay happens in four stages.<\/p>\n Stage 1: Negligible decay -> a surface patina. It may be necessary to re-track the chemistry of the decay because some products of the transmutation might no longer be present. If a gas has escaped, a mechanism will occur describing the change with it absent – Hydrogen lost would seize on H+ from the atmospheric water, for example. But what if it isn’t there? Atmospheric Oxygen may used instead – creating an entirely different chemistry. If it’s in a vacuum, the reversion still takes place but the reactions needed to stabilize the compounds will be different, using only the compounds available.<\/p>\n Note: Even though the SI Chemical Data doesn’t list any Gold compounds in the Inorganic Chemistry section (for example), that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist – just that more research is needed.<\/p>\n Two additional factors reshape the curve – the number of spell levels spent (or equivalent) which slows each stage of the decay, and the root mol of the original subject material which speeds up some decays of materials above iron and vice-versa and slows others.<\/p>\n SL = RP \/ 5 (if applicable) or RP = 5 x SL All times should be rounded up to the next highest 15 min or 0.25 hrs.<\/p>\n Let’s work an example so you can see what happens. we have 11% – 20% If you continually feed energy into the transmuted object, you can replace the losses that lead to decay. In effect, the clock stops until the power is cut.<\/p>\n How much power?<\/p>\n m = log (2 x SL + root mol \/ 2 – 4) For example, if SL is 8 and root mol = 15.4:<\/p>\n m = log (2 x 8 + 15.4 \/ 2 – 4) e = 1<\/p>\n p = (1 + 1.2945 -1) x 10 ^ 4 volts @ (8\/10) + root 1.2945 amps I asked Gemini for some real-world comparisons of this value:<\/p>\n Voltage: 12945.0 V The result is more contained than a “municipal power grid”, though it would reach those levels if you were dealing with 1000 oz. This number is a fantastic fit for sustaining a single, precious ounce of gold.<\/p>\n At roughly 25 kilowatts,<\/em> it is still a serious industrial expenditure, but it moves out of the realm of nuclear reactors and into equipment you could actually house in a fortified basement laboratory or a specialized workshop.<\/p>\n Real-World Comparisons for 25 kW<\/strong><\/p>\n A commercial generator or industrial laser<\/strong> would supply the needed power or its equivalent.<\/p>\n It’s the right amount to simultaneously power about 8-10 average houses or a Neighborhood Block.<\/strong> running at peak load.<\/p>\n It’s not unusual for Electric Vehicle Fast Chargers<\/strong> that are running continuously around the clock.<\/p>\n It’s also the kind of high-voltage you’d see in older medical X-ray machines, neon sign transformers, or specialized electrostatic precipitators. So there would be many options for supplying the power needed.<\/p>\n It’s also enough power usage to match the ‘fingerprint’ of hydroponics plant-growing environments; if the electrical supplier notices this sudden usage, they are likely to call in the authorities.<\/p>\n What the Rig Looks Like at 13 kV<\/strong><\/p>\n The physical containment is quite plausible for an alchemist or mad scientist working with a small-scale sample, and it scales – an extremely valuable deposit, built up over time, sustained by a small nuclear power plant dedicated to the purpose for that 1000 oz, for example.<\/p>\n Instead of a massive substation with football-field clearance around it (for safety) that looks like a Nicola Tesla demonstration, a 13 kV system can be handled within a reinforced steel-and-lead cabinet or a dedicated corner of a workshop.<\/p>\n The Hazards:<\/strong> At 13,000 volts, electricity will still readily arc across a gap of about half an inch to an inch of dry air, producing a sharp, bright blue spark and a vicious snap. Anyone servicing the unit would need thick rubber insulating gloves, heavily shielded cables, and strict lockout\/tag-out protocols to avoid instantaneous electrocution.<\/p>\n The Sound & Smell:<\/strong> Rather than the deep, bone-rattling 50\/60Hz hum of a multi-megavolt transmission line, a 25 kW \/ 13 kV rig would emit a sharp, angry electrical hiss, a steady crackle of corona discharge, and a thick, pungent wave of ozone filling the room.<\/p>\n It hits the Economic & Narrative Sweet Spot perfectly for what you have described in terms of the system infrastructure and desired mechanics – you can<\/em> keep the gold stable, but the cost of the continuous energy burn will slowly bleed you dry. The stabilization rig becomes a hungry, roaring mechanical monster sitting in the corner of the laboratory – out of the way but impossible to ignore!\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/ol>\n Image<\/a> by Willi Heidelbach<\/a> from Pixabay<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n Some game systems are “none of the above,” using neither spells nor large pools of effect dice. This system wasn’t aimed at such, but is easily adaptable to them.<\/p>\n Instead of one of those choices, systems like Traveller have to do everything with simulated science. Multiply the spell level x 10,000, for example, and – in such systems, you get a value that can be applied to do everything with electrical engineering.<\/p>\n If the value is 8 SL, that’s 80,000 Volts at 1 Amp – or 40,000 volts at 2 Amps or 20,000 volts at 4 amps – any combination that yields that product. It’s the wattage of the power that matters.<\/p>\n What’s more, you can reduce that by increasing the exposure time from 1 hour to (r^2-1)\/1.5 hours:<\/p>\n 1 -> default The GM can impose any limit he considers reasonable. but 19 and it’s corresponding 10-day time is an obvious choice.<\/p>\n 80,000\/25 volts at 1 amp for 416 hrs is 3200 V at 1 amp, or 800v at 4 amps or 400v at 8 amps or 50v at 64 amps.<\/p>\n Even with such modifiers, the equipment needed to transmute elements in this way is not going to be on every street corner – it should be hard-to-find, temperamental, and easily broken for good.<\/p>\n GMs may also choose, under this variant system, to increase the base amount transmuted from 1 oz to 1 lb or 0.5 kg.<\/p>\n Finally, the GM has total charge of the look-and-feel – he can choose for the change to be gradual and consistent, or the time to represent a threshold that must be crossed, or some combination – and even have each reaction be different in this regard, if he wants.<\/p>\n I’m sure that some equivalent is possible to create the tone of any campaign in which alchemy should<\/em> be permitted, regardless of the system dynamics; this is intended to be a guideline and example as much as anything else.<\/p>\n The Alchemy system works. It makes game-breaking propositions ruinous in efficiency, while permitting a Technobabble or Thaumopatter implementation possible for other purposes.<\/p>\n For me, the Rule Of Cool and the parameters of the “Chameleon’s Reward” that make it feel real are the ultimate justification for the inclusion of the system. I’m sure it’s just the beginning.<\/p>\n It’s a tool for everyone to have fun, while safeguarding the reality; but, at the same time, it could be used to create the ultimate serious menace for the PCs to overcome, just by playing fast-and-loose with the underlying chemistry. The products could be everything from an impossible element (used in some of EE ‘Doc’ Smith’s Sci-Fi stories) to a Dr-Heckyl-and-Mr-Hyde potion. Or even the Sylvester and Tweety-bird variant of the same.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Lead to Gold is an alchemic pipe dream. Let’s make it possible without ruining the game. For Fantasy & Sci-Fi. Elephant in the room: This post is in more than 15 sections, and many have additional subsections. It’s effectively a full game supplement. So it’s big. That doesn’t make it complicated (though it sometimes can […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":55414,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[65,180,67,83,288,74,402,12,213,297,91,85,92,93,87,299,86,94,97,81],"tags":[237,107,108,362,155,236,117,127,319,172,218,282,366,137,279,223,372,363,359,150],"series":[],"class_list":["post-55432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-campaign-creation","category-cyberpunk","category-dnd","category-fantasy-games","category-metagame","category-mike","category-mosaic-exchanges","category-pcs","category-pieces-of-creation","category-pirateswashbuckling-games","category-plans-and-prep","category-pulp-games","category-rewards","category-rules","category-sf-games","category-steampunk","category-superhero-games","category-ideas-and-inspiration","category-world-design","category-zenith3","tag-adventure-creation","tag-campaign-setting","tag-campaigns","tag-cyberpunk","tag-dd","tag-fantasy","tag-game-mechanics","tag-inspiration","tag-metagaming","tag-npcs","tag-pathfinder","tag-pcs","tag-pirate-games","tag-plausibility","tag-pulp","tag-sci-fi","tag-space-opera","tag-steampunk","tag-superhero-games","tag-treasure"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/ann_milovidova-incantation-5337079.jpg","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p1toiD-eq4","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55432"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55432"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55432\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55455,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55432\/revisions\/55455"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/55414"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55432"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=55432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"Pieces](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/Pieces-Of-Creation-v2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/MLRv1-Bg3-SM.jpg\")
\nNOT for them. Grant a little leeway, though, and you unlock a treasure trove of mad scientist possibilities, mostly relating to proton reassignment and incumbent electrical effects.<\/p>\n01 Mole<\/h3>\n
02 Root Mole<\/h3>\n
03 Square Mole<\/h3>\n
04 Density Of Substance<\/h3>\n
05 Temp vs Perm (Sci-Fi vs Fantasy)<\/h3>\n
06 The Periodic Table of the Elements<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Periodic_Table-of-the-Elements-sm.jpg\")
<\/a>07 Materials Purity & Base Cost<\/h3>\n
Materials cost<\/h6>\n
Casting Cost<\/h6>\n
The Rule Of Cool<\/h6>\n
Increasing Base Casting Cost<\/h6>\n
An alternative Reduction system<\/h5>\n
\n
\n
Affecting Greater Volumes<\/h5>\n
\n +10 spell levels each stage: x 7.6 x 2^5 = 7.6 x 32 = x 243.2 volume.
\n +15 spell levels: x 243.2 x 2.5^5 = 243.2 x 97.65625 = x 23750 volume.
\n +20 spell levels: x 23750 x 2.5^5 = 23750 x 97.65625 = x 2,319,336 volume.
\n +25 spell levels: x 2319336 x 4^5 = x 2,375,000,064 volume.<\/p>\nAffecting greater masses<\/h5>\n
08 The Key Restriction – Known Only<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/curioushunter-bottle-8289310.jpg\")
09 Base Move: Corner to Corner Down 1 then left<\/h3>\n
\n +2 casters = x2 energy levels.
\n +3 casters = x2.5 energy levels.
\n +n casters = x(n-1)\/2 energy levels.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Alchemic-Reactions-on-the-Periodic-Table-sm.jpg\")
<\/a>10 Exotic Moves – 2, 3, 4 (sci-fi only) spaces<\/h3>\n
11 More Exotic Moves: Compounds vs Split Actions and the Session Limit<\/h3>\n
12 Horizontal Move +1 Right<\/h3>\n
13 Vert Move +1 Up<\/h3>\n
14 Vert Move +1 Down<\/h3>\n
15 Cross the Inert Gas Line<\/h3>\n
16 Release Of Energy<\/h3>\n
17 Compounds & Transmutations (A new Chemistry)<\/h3>\n
\n
A Basic Example: Salt<\/h5>\n
Amounts<\/h6>\n
\n 9g -> 9x(24+35.5) = 9×79.5 = 719.1
\n -> 2x3x75 + 3x(75+35.5) = 450 + 3×110.5 = 450 + 331.5 = 781.5
\n 9 x 781.1 \/ 719.1 = 9.78g.
\nIt’s slightly heavier and probably more compact.<\/p>\n
\n 9g \/ 2.2 = 4.0909; x 9 parts = 36.8181;
\n -> 2 x 5.72 + 3 x 2.2 = 11.44 + 6.6 = 18.04;
\n 9 x 18.04 \/ 36.8181 = 4.4g.
\nSo doing things the right way just over halves the weight, and the volume.<\/p>\n\n
How do I know all this?<\/h5>\n
17a Changed Compounds<\/h3>\n
17b Preconfigured Compounds<\/h3>\n
17c Methyl Alcohol aka Methanol<\/h3>\n
\n
Methanol -> Alcohol<\/h5>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/The-Mystery-Compound.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n-> CH3CH3 + OH + CH4 + OH + SiH4 + OH + H20
\n-> CH3CH3 + CH4 + SiH4 + 3 x OH + H20
\n-> CH3CH3 + CH3CH2OH + CH3CH2OHOH + OHCH2CH2OH + CH4 + SiH4 + H20<\/p>\n
\n-> CH3CH2OH + CH3CH2OHOH + CH3CHOHOH + H20 + CO2 + SiO2<\/p>\nAmounts<\/h6>\n
The Alchemy<\/h6>\n
Making Methanol<\/h5>\n
17d Water Into Wine<\/h3>\n
\n
The Chemistry<\/h6>\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/DL-Fructose_num.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/mariakray-chemical-6786530.jpg\")
\n
The Alchemy<\/h6>\n
\n 1 + 1\/3 x 52.4 = 1 + 17.5 = 18.5, rounds to 19 spell levels.
\n 15 + 1\/3 x 42.4 x 5 = 15 + 70.7 = 85.7 points, rounds to 86.<\/p>\n
\n x1.5 for one extra move, x 1.5^2 for the second,
\n so 2×3.375 = 6.75, and 20×3.375 = 67.5.
\n +(1+1) x 1.5 = +3 (or 20 x 1.5 = 30) for the second base move.<\/p>\nAmounts: Applying the Mole<\/h6>\n
Price Reduction: Applying the per-casting modifier<\/h6>\n
Price Reduction: Instead: Applying the alternative reduction method<\/h6>\n
\n184 points \/ 16 = 11.5 points.<\/p>\n
\n 8 x 11.5 = 92 points of effect.<\/p>\n
\n 4 x 11.5 = 46 points of effect.<\/p>\n17e Sugar<\/h3>\n
\n
17e Sugar Experiment #1: The Chemistry<\/h5>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Glucose-Transmutation-1.jpg\"){kind=spacer}
<\/p>\nQuantity<\/h6>\n
The Alchemy<\/h6>\n
\n root mole (Oxygen) = 16^0.5 = 4; x5 for points, so 4 or 20.
\n subtotal = 5 or 35.<\/p>\n
\n subtotal = 13 or 88.<\/p>\n
\n 13 x 2.25 = 29.25 (use 30); 88 x 2.25 = 198.<\/p>\n
\n root mole (Carbon) = 12^0.5 = 3.46; x5 for points, so 4 or 17.3 (use 18).
\n subtotal = 5 or 33.<\/p>\n
\n subtotal = 13 or 60.<\/p>\n
\n 13 x 1.5 = 19.5 (use 20); 60 x 1.5 = 90.<\/p>\nPrice Reduction<\/h6>\n
\n Silicon -> Gallium -> Zinc;
\n Carbon -> Aluminium;
\n Aluminium -> Zinc -> Copper.<\/p>\n
\n = 5 or 35; x 1.5 = 7.5 or 52.5; Subtotals, use 8 or 53.
\n x1.5 = 12 or 80.
\n2: 1 or 15 for the basic move; + 28.09^0.5
\n = 5.3 (use 6) or 5.3 x 5 = 26.5 (use 27). Subtotals = 7 or 42.
\n x 1.5 = 11 or 63.
\n3. 1 or 15 for the basic move, + 12.05^0.5
\n = 3.47 (use 4) or 3.47 x 5 = 17.35, use 18. Subtotals = 5 or 33.
\n4. 1 or 15 for the basic move, + 26.98^0.5
\n = 5.2 (use 6) or 5.2 x 5 = 26; subtotals = 7 or 41;
\n x 1.5 = 11 or 62.
\nTotals : 12+11+5+11 = 39 spell levels or 80+63+33+62=238 points.<\/p>\nBase Price<\/h6>\n
17e Sugar Experiment #2<\/h5>\n
The Chemistry<\/h6>\n
\n
\n
Bond Strengths & The Impossibility of C=Ag<\/h6>\n
Pathway A: Self-Dimerization (The “Glycol-Dimer” Path)<\/h6>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/The-Glucol-Dymer-Path.png\")
<\/p>\nPathway B: Dehydration & Caramelization (The Heat Path)<\/h6>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/HMF-Stoichiometry.png\")
<\/p>\nPathway C: Oxidation (If exposed to Air\/Humidity)<\/h6>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Exposure-to-Air.png\")
<\/p>\nThe Chameleon Reward<\/h6>\n
\n
\n
Base Cost and Amounts<\/h6>\n
Further Adjustments: Optional Rules<\/h6>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/inggwolf-physics-362946.jpg\")
\n
Optional Rule #1:<\/h6>\n
Optional Rule #2<\/h6>\n
Number Of Casters<\/h6>\n
The Alchemy<\/h6>\n
\n + root(16) spell levels or 4 x root(16) points = +4 or +20;
\n subtotals 5 or 35, respectively.<\/p>\n
\n Oxygen -> Phosphorus -> Silicon;
\n Silicon -> Gallium;
\n Gallium -> Cadmium -> Silver.<\/p>\n
\n Oxygen -> Phosphorus -> Silicon;
\n Silicon -> Gallium -> Zinc
\n Zinc -> Silver.<\/p>\n
\n Oxygen -> Phosphorus -> Silicon -> Aluminium;
\n Aluminium -> Zinc;
\n Zinc -> Silver.<\/p>\nPrice Reductions<\/h6>\n
Decay Rates & Energy Input<\/h6>\n
17f EG Methane to Ammonia<\/h3>\n
\n
Base Cost & Profitability<\/h6>\n
\n
\n(Prices in USD per kg).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\nHalf again = 12.5% and costs 25x as much, or 5 gp\/lb. That’s going to far by a factor of 2.5.
\nWe want about 20% of that ‘half again’.<\/p>\nAmounts & material cost per casting<\/h6>\n
\n x25 price = 0.125 gp, -2 cost<\/p>\nCost per casting<\/h6>\n
The Alchemy<\/h6>\n
\n+ root(12) or 5 x root(12) = 3.464 or 17.32. I’m not going to round it yet because we still have moves to incorporate.<\/p>\nMethane -> Ammonia, spell levels system summary<\/h6>\n
\n Creates 0.85 oz of ammonia
\n Casting cost: 0.667 gp \/ oz.
\n Casting: 1 spell level.<\/p>\nMethane -> Ammonia, result points system summary<\/h6>\n
\n Creates 0.85 oz of ammonia
\n Casting cost: 0.667 gp \/ oz.
\n Casting: 33 result points.\n<\/ol>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/thaliesin-drank-1249050.jpg\")
17g EG Ammonia to Methane<\/h3>\n
\n
The Chemistry<\/h6>\n
Base Cost<\/h6>\n
\nBut we only need 5\/9 of this, so we end up with 0.2 x 5\/9 = 0.111 gp.<\/p>\nAmounts<\/h6>\n
\nOn the right: 8 CH4 + O2 + 4 H2 = 8 x 16 + 32 + 4 x 2 = 128 + 32 + 8 = 168.<\/p>\nAlchemy<\/h6>\n
\nH -> O is 1 basic move and left 1, but crosses the Inert Gas Line – unless your periodic table puts Hydrogen above Fluorine, which some do, in which case it’s one basic move, full stop. I think the first is the more accurate description But Google says that they are both valid – so one base move is good enough.<\/p>\n17h EG CO2 to SIO2<\/h3>\n
\n
Amounts<\/h6>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Base Costs<\/h6>\n
The Alchemy<\/h6>\n
Price Reduction<\/h6>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/jarmoluk-fittings-2784904.jpg\")
17i EG Lead to Gold<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
1. The Philosophical Basis: Metals as “Living” Things<\/h6>\n
2. Why Lead<\/em> Specifically?<\/h6>\n
3. Where Did the Notion Originate?<\/h6>\n
4. The Dual Meaning: Material Wealth vs. Spiritual Alchemy<\/h6>\n
4. The Modern Twist<\/h6>\n
\n
Amounts<\/h6>\n
\n4 π r = 16 π = 50.2, and 16.33 π = 51.3, respectively. Take the average to get the breadth of the lead sheet: 50.75 inches.<\/p>\nAlchemy<\/h6>\n
\nEffect Points: (86.97 x 2.25) + (207.2 x 14.4 x 5 \/ 3) = 195.6825 + 4972.8 = 5168.4825. Use 5169.<\/p>\nBase Cost & Price Reduction<\/h6>\n
\n5169 \/ 64 = 80.765625 (use 81). At an average of 3.5 per die, the Alchemy would need to produce a little over 23 dice of effect. That’s high. But we could reduce that by saying that average isn’t good enough, it only works 1 time in 6. That means that a 5 in 6 average is needed on just 16.2 dice. It’s also doable – barely.<\/p>\n
\n 17 x 2\/3 = 11.333 -> 12, base cost 50 x 2 = 100 gp.
\n 17 x 2^2 \/ 3^2 = 7.556 -> 8, base cost 50 x 4 = 200 gp.
\n 17 x 2^3 \/ 3^3 = 5.03 -> 6, base cost 50 x 5 = 250 gp.<\/p>\n
\n 81 x 2\/3 = 54, base cost 50 x 2 = 100 gp.
\n 81 x 2^2 \/ 3^2 = 36, base cost 50 x 4 = 200 gp.
\n 81 x 2^3 \/ 3^3 = 24, base cost 50 x 5 = 250 gp.
\n 81 x 2^4 \/ 3^4 = 16, base cost 50 x 8 = 400 gp.
\n 81 x 2^5 \/ 3^5 = 10.67 -> 11, base cost 50×10=500gp.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/greendragon-gecko-frankenstein-3900459.jpg\")
Decay Rate<\/h6>\n
\n Stage 2: An accelerating decay to 50%.
\n Stage 3: A consistently slowing decay rate to 90%.
\n Stage 4: A slow, extended decay from 90-100%.<\/p>\n
\nDelay (0% – 10%): (1 + SL\/10) x (12 + SL\/10 + 56^0.5 – root mol) hrs.
\n11% – 20%
\n a = (2 + SL\/10)
\n t1 = a^(2 +a)
\n [or log(t1) = (2 + SL\/10) x log(a)]
\n adj 1 = + SL\/10
\n adj 2 = + 56^0.5 – root mol
\n t = t1 + adj 1 + adj 2, hrs
\n21% – 30% = 2.2 x t20 + SL\/10 + 56^0.5 – root mol
\n31% – 40% = 3.5 x t30 + SL\/10 + 56^0.5 – root mol
\n41% – 50% = 3.5 x t40 + SL\/10 + 56^0.5 – root mol
\n51% – 90% =
\n adj 1 = SL \/ 20
\n adj 2 = + 1\/2 x root mol – 56^0.5
\n t^4 = [1.5 x t50 – SL\/20]
\n t = root (root (t^4)) per +10%
\n90% – 100% = [t90 x t0]^0.5 + SL\/10<\/p>\n
\n SL = 8 (cost 200 + materials 3 lb \/ sp)
\n root mol = 15.4
\n RP equiv = 5×8=40
\n
\nDelay (0% – 10%): (1 + 8\/10) x (12 + 8\/10 – root mol) hrs
\n = 1.8 x (12.8 + 56^0.5 – 15.4)
\n = 1.8 x (12.8 + 7.48 – 15.4)
\n = 1.8 x (20.28 – 15.4)
\n = 1.8 x (4.88)
\n = 8.784 hrs = 8.75 hrs<\/p>\n
\n a = (2 + SL\/10) = 2.8
\n t1 = a^(2 +a\/2) = 2.8 ^ 2.4 = 11.835
\n adj 1 = + SL\/10 = + 0.8
\n adj 2 = + 56^0.5 – root mol = 7.48 – 15.4 = -7.92
\n
\n t = t1 + adj 1 + adj 2, hrs
\n = 11.835 + 0.8 – 7.92
\n = 4.715, round to 4.75
\n
\n21% – 30% = 2.2 x t20 + SL\/10 + 56^0.5 – root mol
\n = 2.2 x 4.75 + 0.8 – 7.92
\n = 10.45 + 0.8 – 7.92
\n = 3.33 hrs, round to 3.5
\n
\n31% – 40% = 3.5 x t30 + SL\/10 + 56^0.5 – root mol
\n = 3.5 x 3.5 + 0.8 – 7.92
\n = 14 + 0.8 – 7.92
\n = 6.88 hrs, round to 7
\n
\n41% – 50% = 3.8 x t40 + SL\/10 + 56^0.5 – root mol
\n = 3.5 x 7 + 0.8 – 7.92
\n = 24.5 + 0.8 – 8 + 0.08
\n = 17.38, round to 17.5
\n
\n51% – 90% =
\n adj 1 = SL \/ 20 = 0.4
\n adj 2 = + 1\/2 x root mol – 56^0.5
\n = (15.4 \/ 2) – 7.48
\n = 7.7 – 7.48 = 0.22
\n
\n t^4 = [1.5 x t50 – SL\/20]
\n = 1.5 x 17.5 – 0.4
\n = 26.25 – 0.4 = 25.855
\n
\n t = root (root (t^4)) per +10%
\n = 2.255, round to 2.75 per +10%
\n
\n90% – 100% = (t90 x t0)^0.5 + SL\/10
\n = (2.75 x 8.75) ^0.5 + 0.8
\n = 24.0625 ^ 0.5 + 0.8
\n = 4.9 + 0.8
\n = 5.7, round to 5.75.
\n
\nSo the table reads:
\n 0 hrs negligible decay
\n 8.75 hrs negligible decay ends (10%)
\n 8.75 + 4.75 = 13.5 hrs 20%
\n 13.5 + 3.5 = 17 hrs 30%
\n 17 + 7 = 24 hrs 40%
\n 24 + 17.5 = 43.5 hrs 50%
\n 43.5 + 2.75 = 46.25 hrs 60%
\n 46.25 + 2.75 = 49 hrs 70%
\n 49 + 2.75 = 51.75 hrs 80%
\n 51.75 + 2.75 = 54.5 hrs 90%
\n 54.5 + 5.75 = 60.25 hrs 100%<\/p>\nEnergy Input<\/h6>\n
\ne = int (m)
\np = (1 + m – e) x 10 ^ (e+3) volts @ (SL\/10) + root m amps<\/p>\n
\n = log (16 + 7.7 – 4)
\n = log (19.7)
\n = 1.2945<\/p>\n
\n = 1.2945 x 10^4 volts @ 0.8 + 1.138 amps
\n = 1.2945 x 10^4 volts @ 1.938 amps<\/p>\n\n
\n
\nAmperage: 1.938 A
\nPower in Kilowatts (kW): 25.08741 kW<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/wilhei-electricity-705670.jpg\")
18 A word on Traveller<\/h3>\n
\n 2 -> (4-1)\/1.5 = 2 hrs
\n 3 -> (9-1)\/1.5 = 5 1\/3 hrs
\n 4 -> (16-1)\/1.5 = 10 hrs
\n 5 -> (25-1)\/1.5 = 16 hrs
\n 6 -> (36-1)\/1.5 = 23 1\/3 hrs
\n 7 -> (49-1)\/1.5 = 32 hrs
\n 8 -> (64-1)\/1.5 = 42 hrs
\n 9 -> (81-1)\/1.5 = 53 1\/3 hrs
\n 10 -> (100-1)\/1.5 = 66 hrs
\n 11 -> (121-1)\/1.5 = 80 hrs
\n 12 -> (144-1)\/1.5 = 95 1\/3 hrs
\n 13 -> (169-1)\/1.5 = 112 hrs
\n 14 -> (196-1)\/1.5 = 130 hrs
\n 15 -> (225-1)\/1.5 = 149 1\/3 hrs
\n 16 -> (256-1)\/1.5 = 170 hrs
\n 17 -> (289-1)\/1.5 = 192 hrs
\n 18 -> (324-1)\/1.5 = 215 1\/3 hrs
\n 19 -> (361-1)\/1.5 = 240 hrs
\n 20 -> (400-1)\/1.5 = 266 hrs
\n 21 -> (441-1)\/1.5 = 293 1\/3 hrs
\n 22 -> (484-1)\/1.5 = 322 hrs
\n 23 -> (528-1)\/1.5 = 351 1\/3 hrs
\n 24 -> (576-1)\/1.5 = 383 1\/3 hrs
\n 25 -> (625-1)\/1.5 = 416 hrs
\n 26 -> (676-1)\/1.5 = 450 hrs
\n 27 -> (729-1)\/1.5 = 485 1\/3 hrs
\n 28 -> (784-1)\/1.5 = 522 hrs
\n 29 -> (841-1)\/1.5 = 560 hrs
\n 30 -> (900-1)\/1.5 = 599 1\/3 hrs<\/p>\n19 Final Word<\/h3>\n