D&D 5E Transmutation Wizard's Major Transformation Feature

What can be done with the D&D 5e Transmutation Wizard's 14th level feature, Major Transformation?

Perhaps due to the Transmutation school generally coming in at the bottom of the wizard popularity list, there seems to be little discussion of the use of this ability. To be clear, I am not attempting any funny business here; there is no attempt to twist real-world physics with game mechanics to create peasant railguns. The following are all, in my opinion, quite reasonable deductions based on available information, not dependent upon loopholes or approximations made in the rules, and no more or less powerful than one should expect of a high-level wizard who is also capable of using the same Master Transmuter feature to restore someone to perfect health, resurrect them, or de-age them. No material value is being created here, merely exchanged. If you have thoughts or other ideas, I would love to hear them.

#==============================================


So, Major Transformation. The ability states: "You can transmute one nonmagical object—no larger than a 5-foot cube—into another nonmagical object of similar size and mass and of equal or lesser value. You must spend 10 minutes handling the object to transform it."


The "similar size and mass" and "one object" parts are the major hitches of this ability that require us to put our thinking [wizard] hats on. So, what are the uses of this ability? As I see it:


1) Low-value transformations. The volume restriction is too low to make much useful (otherwise boats, carts, shacks could all be interchanged). Fork to knife? Plate to bowl? Ottoman to chair? Yes to all, but for a high-level wizard ability that has to compete with your option to bring someone back from the dead... this seems like an underwhelming option. If you can think of a good use in this arena, please tell me. Edit: a few ideas suggested thus far: devaluing items for mischief, turning a post-assassination corpse into dirt, getting past doors or locks made of exotic materials, creating food or water from ambient materials in a survival situation (though by this level I would expect to have the Magnificent Mansion spell).


2) Gem-swapping (or other expensive, small material components). Have a 500 gp ruby but need a 500 gp diamond? This will do it for you.


3) Gem merging. Have two 250 gp diamonds but need a 500 gp diamond? Stick them together with a bit of wax, then transmute the object into a single gem. Anyone telling you two objects stuck together with wax cannot be considered one object is being deliberately obtuse: an "object" can most certainly be made of other objects (candles, swords, barrels, etc. are objects composed of smaller parts, and DMG 247 even lists an entire cart as one object).
- Caveat: the final gem must contain a number of imperfections equal to the number of input gems, or have a quality or finish lower than that of the input gems. See Appendix A.


4) Gem production. The superficial difficulty here is that gems are more value-dense than metal while being less mass-dense. To overcome this, we need a highly value-dense but easy-to-acquire item (gemstones are ideal, but already covered by option #3, above - if you have any number of gems, just do that). A mixture of platinum coins and wax can easily give you the correct monetary value and densities to be a diamond of middling quality. See Appendix B.
-Note: since gems change value with size, there also exist crossover points where diamond grains have the exact same value per gram as any of the precious metals. Do as above, then transmute into a single, horrendous-quality, large diamond with no value beyond the fact that it could be ground into powder. See Appendix A.


You can stop reading here if numbers scare you. This is merely reference data.
#==============================================




Appendix A: Gem value vs quality and size
If quality and finish are constant, gem value is exponential wrt size unless there are imperfections which require the larger gem to be cut into smaller gems to achieve a desired quality. The cheapest possible diamond is one of such low quality its only value would be as a powder. Below are some price points: see how much we can target a specific value by setting the quality (these are all for 1 gram of diamond):


- 5 x 1 carat (1 g total) diamonds, extremely high quality: 5 * $18,091 = $90,455 total
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD10810591?click_id=173466947


- 5 carat (1 g) diamond, extremely high quality: $638,432
https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD10065422?click_id=476351953


- 5 carat (1 g) diamond, low quality: $550
https://www.etsy.com/listing/399601501/uncut-rough-diamond-5-carat


- 5 carat (1 g) diamond powder: $8.75
https://www.amazon.com/1200-Grit-Diamond-Powder-Vial/dp/B002I9TKH0/


- 5 carat (1 g) of bulk diamond powder: $0.14
(see Alibaba and the like).


The Cullinan diamond (621.35 g) sold, uncut and unfinished, for a modern equivalent of $19,342,740. If it were instead of such poor quality that it could only be turned into powder, selling it in 1 g installments (no bulk pricing) only nets $5436.81, whereas selling in bulk could net a grand total of only $87. See how far the quality knob can turn? $87 to $19,342,740 for the exact same quantity of diamond, depending only on quality.




Appendix B: Simple algebra to determine the size of a produced diamond.


For the purpose of this exercise, I use platinum coins. We also need a low mass-density substance, preferably also low in value-density, to balance out the extreme density of platinum. I'm using beeswax to maintain the candle analogy (coins mixed with sawdust may or may not be an "object", but coins embedded in wax is no different than those candles with glitter or doodads in them).


50 coins == 1 lb == 453.592 g. 1 coin == 9.07184 g.


Densities (g/cc):
beeswax: 0.958
platinum: 21.45
diamond: 3.51


1 carat == 0.2 g


So, a 500 gp (50 pp) diamond:
platinum coins: 50 coins == 1 lb == 453.592 g in 21.15 cc.


(m_x = mass, rho_x = density)
We begin with an equation saying the volume of the inputs is equivalent to the volume of the outputs
m_platinum / rho_platinum + m_wax / rho_wax = m_diamond / rho_diamond
First, weight must be constant, so set m_diamond = m_platinum + m_wax:
m_platinum / rho_platinum + m_wax / rho_wax = (m_platinum + m_wax) / rho_diamond
Second, solve for m_wax, the only unknown:
m_platinum / rho_platinum + m_wax / rho_wax = m_platinum / rho_diamond + m_wax / rho_diamond
m_wax / rho_wax - m_wax / rho_diamond = m_platinum / rho_diamond - m_platinum / rho_platinum
m_wax (1 / rho_wax - 1 / rho_diamond) = m_platinum / rho_diamond - m_platinum / rho_platinum
m_wax = (m_platinum / rho_diamond - m_platinum / rho_platinum) / (1 / rho_wax - 1 / rho_diamond)
Or, somewhat prettier:
m_wax = rho_wax * m_platinum * (rho_platinum - rho_diamond) / rho_platinum / (rho_diamond - rho_wax)
m_wax = 142.41 g in 148.66 cc
m_total = m_diamond = 142.41 g + 453.59 g = 596 g
volume_total = volume_diamond = 148.66 cc + 21.15 cc = 169.81 cc
Sanity check: m_total / volume_total == 3.51 == rho_diamond
Checks out!


So we have used 500 gp worth of platinum, mixed with beeswax of negligible value, to perfectly match the mass and volume of a 596 g diamond about the size of a tennis ball. While the game provides us no framework to assign a value to that diamond based on its quality, Appendix A should give you an idea of how much latitude we have in turning the quality knob, so we can find a quality that matches the 500 gp of value. I cannot deduce the D&D quality-value relationship a priori, but there is guaranteed to exist a quality level appropriate to our value inputs.

#==============================================

Thoughts? Again, no material value is being created here, merely exchanged. I don't think any of these options breaks anything, and none are attempts to. I simply want to find some good ways to use this top-level Transmuter ability, and I see too many people claiming it's useless.

I have to say, I'm interested in the implications of cost being a magically useful physical property of an object.

Transforming objects into objects of similar size and mass but lesser value has hilarious potential in terms of being obnoxious to your enemies. "Your highness, I think you'll find that your gold throne is now your tin throne."

Sacred opal spider idol of Lolth with a thousand ruby eyes? Now it's a sacred hot pink imitation marble idol of Lolth with a thousand gumball eyes.

I wouldn't say it is useless necessarily, just that much like the School of Illusion requires a bit of creativity and a DM willing to work with you in order to get any benefit out of it. Some examples:

-Doesn't a 5' cube get awfully close to the volume taken up by a small and medium sized creature? Who needs to dispose of the bodies (which once dead are technically objects), when you can transmute them into a large puddle of water, mound of dirt, or even just air!

-Got an issue with a locked door? I say those are distinct objects and well within the volume limit of a 5' cube. Take ten minutes to turn it into lime jello! You get past the door and can collect a bit of a tasty snack!

-In the desert and need some water? Fill a bucket with sand and BAM! You have water! Or beer!

Aside: They aren't very clear by what is meant by larger than a 5' cube. Does that mean that no dimension of the object can be larger than 5'? Or does that mean the total volume cannot be larger than 125 cubic feet? Because that is a large difference. A 10' pole is beyond the dimensions, but well within the volume limit. For me, I would say the intent is the total volume, which would provide larger leeway for objects to be considered for the ability to successfully interact with.

Aside 2: I think the price limit is specifically meant to prevent having an infinite money machine in D&D. For example, water is much more valuable in the desert than rubies. Does that mean I can turn water into rubies? Or that I can't turn water into sand? The spirit of the rule is to prevent players from getting wealth, rather than to prevent them from functionally using the material. Thus, if the character has a normal sword but needs a silver sword to kill a creature, I'm not gonna say no because a silver sword is more valuable than a normal sword. The player is using the ability as intended, rather than to game the system for wealth or influence.

Burnside said:

Sacred opal spider idol of Lolth with a thousand ruby eyes? Now it's a sacred hot pink imitation marble idol of Lolth with a thousand gumball eyes.

Click to expand...

While I never would have thought of that (not really my style), I have to applaud the ingenuity and will have to keep that in my back pocket! You might be able to ignite a powderkeg if you have two rival groups and some kind of trophy or symbolic thing they fight over. If you silly-fy the object, the group who had possession of it will naturally assume the rivals stole it and left a ridiculous imitation in its place.

TwoSix said:

I have to say, I'm interested in the implications of cost being a magically useful physical property of an object.

Click to expand...

Agreed, it's a bizarre side-effect of the way they've written the material components to require items of value. If I buy a diamond for 5 gp and sell it to you for 500 gp, will it work if you use it for a spell requiring a 500 gp diamond? If you give it to a friend at no cost, does it become a 0 gp diamond? What if you let them have it for 50 gp? Just what in the world is the value of this diamond now? In any economy, an object is only worth what we agree it's worth.

The game assumes an intrinsic value to the items, so to play along I think we have to just roll with it. I've heard people argue that, say, 500 gp diamonds should be super rare so you'd have to pay 5000 gp if you want one. But that just devolves into the same nonsense math as my first paragraph. I've found it best to treat gems like cash with a value printed on them. Which of course still allows for gems of varying quality, it just means that the aforementioned quality is a property of the object, like mass or volume.

BlivetWidget said:

Agreed, it's a bizarre side-effect of the way they've written the material components to require items of value. If I buy a diamond for 5 gp and sell it to you for 500 gp, will it work if you use it for a spell requiring a 500 gp diamond? If you give it to a friend at no cost, does it become a 0 gp diamond? What if you let them have it for 50 gp? Just what in the world is the value of this diamond now? In any economy, an object is only worth what we agree it's worth.

The game assumes an intrinsic value to the items, so to play along I think we have to just roll with it. I've heard people argue that, say, 500 gp diamonds should be super rare so you'd have to pay 5000 gp if you want one. But that just devolves into the same nonsense math as my first paragraph. I've found it best to treat gems like cash with a value printed on them. Which of course still allows for gems of varying quality, it just means that the aforementioned quality is a property of the object, like mass or volume.

Click to expand...

It's only a problem if you read it ultra-literally. I read "a diamond worth 500 gp" as shorthand for "a diamond of a size and quality that would typically sell for 500 gp in a typical D&D economy." If you haggle the jeweler down to 400 gp, the diamond still works fine as a spell component. If someone corners the diamond market and prices go through the roof, the diamond in your pocket does not suddenly gain the ability to power dozens of spells.

It kind of blows my mind that anyone seriously argues for the literal reading. (I'm not accusing you of doing this, but I have seen others do so on these forums.)

As far as transmutation goes... yeah, it's a little harder to square that with the fiction of the game, if only because it's an enormous coincidence that the "transmutation value" of any given item just so happens to line up exactly with its price in the typical economy. But it's an effective and simple way to balance the power. Perhaps the reason those values line up so well is high-level transmuters arbitraging the difference! It could well be that gold used to be worth 20 times as much as silver, and transmuters saw how they could make a huge profit turning 125 cubic feet of silver into 12.5 cubic feet of gold and 112.5 cubic feet of candy corn. And so they did it, and kept doing it, driving up the price of silver and driving down the price of gold, until the ratio stabilized at 1:10.

Dausuul said:

It's only a problem if you read it ultra-literally. I read "a diamond worth 500 gp" as shorthand for "a diamond of a size and quality that would typically sell for 500 gp in a typical D&D economy." If you haggle the jeweler down to 400 gp, the diamond still works fine as a spell component. If someone corners the diamond market and prices go through the roof, the diamond in your pocket does not suddenly gain the ability to power dozens of spells.

It kind of blows my mind that anyone seriously argues for the literal reading. (I'm not accusing you of doing this, but I have seen others do so on these forums.)

As far as transmutation goes... yeah, it's a little harder to square that with the fiction of the game, if only because it's an enormous coincidence that the "transmutation value" of any given item just so happens to line up exactly with its price in the typical economy. But it's an effective and simple way to balance the power. Perhaps the reason those values line up so well is high-level transmuters arbitraging the difference! It could well be that gold used to be worth 20 times as much as silver, and transmuters saw how they could make a huge profit turning 125 cubic feet of silver into 12.5 cubic feet of gold and 112.5 cubic feet of candy corn. And so they did it, and kept doing it, driving up the price of silver and driving down the price of gold, until the ratio stabilized at 1:10.

Click to expand...

Ha, that's an interesting idea. Guilds of transmuters could effectively maintain the ratios of precious metals regardless of what the mines dug up. As for gem value, I tend to take it a step further and just consider them to have their literal value be obvious, so trying to haggle them down would be like me trying to haggle you into accepting three quarters in exchange for your dollar. It's slightly silly, but if gem values aren't set in stone (pun not intended but found pleasing), the economy gets a little wobbly.

Hawk Diesel said:

I wouldn't say it is useless necessarily, just that much like the School of Illusion requires a bit of creativity and a DM willing to work with you in order to get any benefit out of it. Some examples:

-Doesn't a 5' cube get awfully close to the volume taken up by a small and medium sized creature? Who needs to dispose of the bodies (which once dead are technically objects), when you can transmute them into a large puddle of water, mound of dirt, or even just air!

-Got an issue with a locked door? I say those are distinct objects and well within the volume limit of a 5' cube. Take ten minutes to turn it into lime jello! You get past the door and can collect a bit of a tasty snack!

-In the desert and need some water? Fill a bucket with sand and BAM! You have water! Or beer!

Aside: They aren't very clear by what is meant by larger than a 5' cube. Does that mean that no dimension of the object can be larger than 5'? Or does that mean the total volume cannot be larger than 125 cubic feet? Because that is a large difference. A 10' pole is beyond the dimensions, but well within the volume limit. For me, I would say the intent is the total volume, which would provide larger leeway for objects to be considered for the ability to successfully interact with.

Aside 2: I think the price limit is specifically meant to prevent having an infinite money machine in D&D. For example, water is much more valuable in the desert than rubies. Does that mean I can turn water into rubies? Or that I can't turn water into sand? The spirit of the rule is to prevent players from getting wealth, rather than to prevent them from functionally using the material. Thus, if the character has a normal sword but needs a silver sword to kill a creature, I'm not gonna say no because a silver sword is more valuable than a normal sword. The player is using the ability as intended, rather than to game the system for wealth or influence.

Click to expand...

Possibly it requires an extra-cooperative DM, but ideally (for my own peace of mind), I'd like to be able to consider the features with a firm RAW backing. And I think I can do that with what I posted, twiddling the quality dial on the gems. Regarding your points:

-Corpses... That is... not something I had considered. Boy, you could really mess with someone by casting Animate Objects on five corpses, because they wouldn't be undead. Hm. I'm going to have to think about that some more. Back to transmuting, I don't know that turning a single corpse into dirt (or a roasted pig...) is a great use of the spell in most cases, but for a single target assassination, that is certainly one way to get rid of the evidence. You couldn't turn them into air though (the mass thing...).

-I think in most cases you would be better off using Minor Alchemy to turn the lock or hinge into wood, but if the DM gets cheeky with you and throws up an adamantine door, this would be great.

-I would hope to have the Magnificent Mansion spell by then, but since it's not a ritual, this could be good for making it through the next long rest.

-To be safe, I have generally assumed a 5' cube means a 5' cube. I like your interpretation of volume rather than dimensions (I could make that canoe after all!), but I don't think I could expect that to be consistent across tables.

-Yes, the price limit is fine and reasonable, I agree it absolutely makes sense. The silly part IMO is the density (size and mass) requirement, which requires me to jump through a few hoops to turn my 500 gp into a 500 gp diamond. I think my posted method is reasonable, no wealth is being created, but it feels unnecessarily complex, like I should just be able to turn 500 gp straight into the diamond.