Non-binary Neutral Cleric Lay On Hands

As a Cleric in DCC, your Lay on Hands effectiveness is dictated in large part by your Alignment vs the Alignment of the recipient. It's one of the few times Alignment is mechanically relevant, and I'm a fan of it. I'm also a big fan of the many-faceted Neutral Alignment, which for the most part misses out on this mechanic. Nobody is opposed to Neutral, meaning Neutral Clerics are at least moderately effective at healing literally anyone. Not only that, but Disapproval does not occur when healing any Alignment, which is the most mechanically significant part of a Cleric's relationship with their God.

This also means that Neutral Cleric is objectively the best choice - objectively better character options being something I've mentioned I am not a fan of before. You can heal anyone and there are only two possible match-ups, the results of which amount to "good" or "great". The "bad" possibility is just gone.

Neutral Clerics still have the ability to Turn Unholy, so there must be beings out there that are opposed to your God. This should be true for any God that stands for literally anything - hell, even if they don't. The truest of Neutral characters will still have enemies.

"What makes a man turn Neutral?"

I'm not really breaking any ground here, but I would suggest that Neutral Clerics still have to treat characters as Opposed Alignment if they are someone their God would consider sinful, or that person's actions are antithetical to their God's goals. A druidic Cleric of nature can, by the book, Turn Unholy against demons; that alone makes a lot of Wizards troublesome to deal with even if the Wizard is Lawful or Neutral. Would your God who turns demons want you to aid someone who bargains with a demon prince?

It's essentially the same philosophy espoused on p. 108 of the core book, where the author suggests discouraging Clerics from attempting to heal spellburn damage.

A Cleric might find their God sending an omen of disapproval after healing a passing traveler with a wound they refuse to talk about. This could be the hint that leads to the discovery that the man was in fact a werecreature, recently out of a run-in with a therianthrope hunter.

Your Cleric and Wizard could find themselves at odds once the Wizard starts delving into necromancy - while there may have been no qualms with the Patron, undeath is too great a sin for your God to simply ignore.

If your Turn Unholy includes animals or monstrous creatures as the rules suggest, this might stretch so far as to include animal-folk or races considered "monstrous" like orcs.

Just try to play up the relationship with their God and the required devotion to their goals. After all, without them a Cleric is nothing, and I think the Cleric-deity dynamic is what makes an interesting Cleric. Disapproval as a mechanic is a strong motivator and a great story engine while not actually being overly punishing most of the time.

Aussie Monsters: The Bunyip

A version of the bunyip for D&D has existed since the Fiend Folio was published in 1981. This is not that bunyip. If you want that bunyip, Daniel J Bishop did a fantastic job of converting it for DCC.

Instead, I went seeking inspiration in fairytales of old and early accounts of bunyips.

As depicted in Andrew Lang's (problematically-titled) The Brown Fairy Book (1904).

In Australian Folklore

Accounts vary wildly, and it seems that the only thing people can agree on is that it's some kind of water-dwelling monster and it'll get you if you're not careful. It's commonly described as seal-like, but it has also been described as like a great starfish, an immense platypus, and many now believe it may have been a diprotodon (prehistoric giant wombats - we have fossils of these!).

I personally believe that the deep, growling mating call of the koala helped inspire these stories of swamp monsters. Go listen to it and tell me that doesn't sound like a lurking beast!

One account I found particularly interesting was this description from an article published in 1845:

The Bunyip, then, is represented as uniting the characteristics of a bird and of an alligator. It has a head resembling an emu, with a long bill, at the extremity of which is a transverse projection on each side, with serrated edges like the bone of the stingray. Its body and legs partake of the nature of the alligator. The hind legs are remarkably thick and strong, and the fore legs are much longer, but still of great strength.

Along with the account of this particular bunyip having killed a woman and the man claiming his scars were from a bunyip, this one kind of sounds like a cassowary... Well, until you count the number of legs, I guess. And indeed, some believe that "bunyip" may have been an ancient word for the cassowary bird, infamous for its powerful kicks and aggressive nature.

We may never know what a bunyip looks like, though every Australian has heard of them. Many of us have even seen Bertha down by the Murray River, but as it happens, she might actually be a mulyewonk.

The mulyewonk might also be a kind of bunyip, but the origins of both are murky as the waters they lurk.

The bunyip from the tale in The Brown Fairy Book sets a curse upon a tribe after their hunters catch its cub while fishing and refuse to return it. The "mother bear" trope is something I previously hadn't ever ascribed to the bunyip, so I found it quite interesting to see here. I decided to lean into that. Everything contained within the stat blocks below is inspired by this particular tale.

∗ ∗ ∗

Bunyip

The bunyip is a swamp-dwelling beast resembling a gigantic hairy seal with a wide bill. It walks upon four stout legs but rarely leaves the water, where it is fastest and can hide easily. They are most often found solitary, potentially with 1-3 cubs, but in rare cases have been known to travel in mating pairs. Its cubs are the size of a large dog and can grow as large as a hippopotamus. They are of low intelligence but are able to curse those who threaten their young.

They are ambush predators and wait in the shallows for unsuspecting mammals to come close. They do not usually attack humans, though male bunyips they have been known to target those carrying valuable treasures. It is unclear why they want these treasures, though collected hoards can be found in the underwater den of the mother bunyip.

Bunyip, adult

Initiative: +4
Attack: bite +6 melee (2d6) or kick +4 melee (1d6, knocks prone)
AC: 17; HD: 5d8 (22 HP);
Movement: 20', swim 90'; Action Dice: 2d20;
Special: curse of the bunyip, camouflage, inedible
Alignment: Neutral;
Saves: Fort +8, Ref +2, Will +6;

Curse of the Bunyip: A mother bunyip can issue a curse as an attack action, and will only do so toward those she believes have threatened or harmed her offspring. The target receives a DC 16 Will save to resist the curse. The curse is detailed below.

Camouflage: All bunyips receive +10 to attempts to hide in water or mud.

Inedible: Their meat is too tough to physically eat, and too foul to even try.

Bunyip, cub

Initiative: +0

Attack: bite +0 melee (1d6)

AC: 13; HD: 2d8 (10 HP);

Movement: 20', swim 60'; Action Dice: 1d20;

Special: easily lured, mama bunyip, camouflage, inedible

Alignment: Neutral;

Saves: Fort +4, Ref -1, Will -1;

Easily lured: The bunyip cub is naive and can easily be attracted with a piece of meat. It will not suspect danger. A successful strength contest against a STR of 16 (+2) can reel it in with a fishing line.

Mama bunyip: The cub never strays far from its mother. When encountering a cub, a fully grown bunyip is always nearby and ready to protect her offspring. The cub will, where possible, try to simply hide behind its mother.

Camouflage: All bunyips receive +10 to attempts to hide in water or mud.

Inedible: Their meat is too tough to physically eat, and too foul to even try.

Curse of the Bunyip

The curse of the bunyip is invoked by the harrowing wails of a mother who fears for her child.

This curse carries a -2 Luck penalty and causes black feathers to sprout all over the target's body over the course of a few hours. Their new strange appearance is off-putting to anyone they interact with - either express this through roleplay or apply a -1d penalty if social checks are used. Someone afflicted by this curse finds muddy water seeping up from the soil around them, enough to wet the ground or form small puddles if they stand in a ditch. The water is clearly not safe to drink and prevents getting a good night's sleep while camping.

The curse can be remedied by reuniting a mother and child, or by removing the most beautiful treasure from the bunyip's submerged lair.

∗ ∗ ∗

The bunyip and inland seal archive of Australia | ABC Pool

Find something on 19 Sided Die

This post is for keeping things organized and findable. Not all posts will be listed here, but I'll try to keep it up to date with major ones and anything that falls into any of the content categories.

DCC

Classes

Class Discussion

Do We Really Need [more classes in general]?

Do We Really Need [Barbarians, Bards, Rangers]?

Homebrew Classes

The Great Divide - Splitting Race and Class

Ranger

Dragon

Monsters

Bunyip

6 Kinds of Dark

6 more Kinds of Dark

Fleshbones

Primal Servants of Neutrality

Miscellaneous Homebrew Content

Elder Scrolls Flavoured Birth Augurs

d100 Crimes you may have Committed

Houserules

Mighty Deeds for Non-Mighty Folk

The Non-binary Series

Non-binary Skill Training (Dice Chain Competence)
Non-binary Alignment

Non-binary Spell Training

Non-binary Neutral Cleric Lay On Hands

Handy Tables

Bizarre Mishaps for Zero Luck

Extended Ability Score Modifiers

Quest For It - Ability Score Increases

Non-binary Spell Training

Applying the principles of Dice Chain Competence to known spells.

∗ ∗ ∗

When a 0-level gongfarmer successfully goes out on his first adventure and decides to level up into a Wizard, he inexplicably learns 4 spells he wasn't able to use during that very same adventure. This raises a few questions.

When my campaign was beginning I was looking for ways to make this more narratively sensible, and at first I landed on having the PC research these spells in the way described in the book - a week spent on the task and an INT roll. This made more sense, but it's a lot of downtime to have after the very first adventure when they have leads to follow up on. They left town only knowing a couple of the spells they're supposed to have at their disposal, and it's several sessions before they have the downtime to research again.

By this point I had already established the Dice Chain Competence system of skill advancement so it only made sense to use it here to smooth the gaps out too. It's also way more fun to have that diegetic mid-session advancement where the players actively practice their spells as part of the adventure rather than just saying they do it while they're in town.

Here's how we do it: Upon gaining your known spells at level 1, mark "d12" next to each of them to signify your skill level. After successfully casting a spell (while under stress), go up a rung on the dice chain for that specific spell. That's it.

The standard way I handle skills involves an INT check to see whether you learn anything from your successful attempt. Spells are an exception to this, for a couple of reasons. You're already checking INT in your casting of the spell. The die used measures not just intellectual skill, but perhaps a bond with an unseen otherworldly entity or a corrupt arcane affinity for the spell's use. They're already something not all people can do anyway, so to be casting them you need to be in the "can cast" category. Spellcasting was already determined to be an exception to the rule, mostly due to Thieves' Cast from Scroll.

I think those reasons all help to justify it but the real truth is that I just felt like forcing an INT check to advance in a spell that the caster probably already had to spellburn to use was a little rough when, as per RAW, they should already have just been given the spell. It makes the process of learning a spell during play a bit more adventure-sized.

We haven't been using this system for Clerics because their spells are granted, not learned. That being said, you could absolutely start a Cleric with a d12 for casting in general (as opposed to specific spells) to smooth out the transition between a 0-level nobody with zero magic and God's Chosen handing out miracles like candy.

∗ ∗ ∗

Full mechanical details:

Spells a Wizard "discovers" through level-up begin at a d12 "skill level" and go up the dice chain after they are successfully cast.

Each level, the starting die of new spells goes up +1d. Level 2 Wizards learn spells at d14 and so on. 

Each higher level the spell, -1d to the starting die. Spell levels go up slower than Wizard levels, so high level Wizards still learn spells faster than low level ones.

Here's a matrix for those who prefer tables over formulae:

	Wizard Level
Spell Lvl↓	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1	d12	d14	d16	d20	d20	d20	d20	d20	d20	d20
2	-	-	d14	d16	d20	d20	d20	d20	d20	d20
3	-	-	-	-	d16	d20	d20	d20	d20	d20
4	-	-	-	-	-	-	d20	d20	d20	d20
5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	d20	d20

You can still use the standard week of downtime with an INT check to study a spell and make it a d20. Spells learned through means other than level-up generally also just get the full d20.

Playable Dragon Class for DCC

When I first published here at 19 Sided Die, I mentioned on reddit that one of my upcoming posts was something stupid but nobody could stop me doing it anyway. Months later, this is that post.

"There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as, let us say, a 'young' one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee." - Gary Gygax in Men & Magic (1974)

A'ight Gary, bet.

∗ ∗ ∗

Design Points

• Minimal balance - not zero balance, because the quote implies they should follow a journey of advancing power as any other character. I do hope for this to be somewhat playable but balance isn't a priority. It's a dragon, it's going to be strong.
• DCC's dragons are really cool so I'll use as much existing material from DCC as possible and make the class feel like it matches the monster. Unfortunately, this necessitates making them relatively complex by loading the class up with a bunch of abilities that they gain as they level. I generally don't like this style of class design for DCC, but that's basically how DCC's dragons work.
• It has to be an actual dragon. Dragonborn are an attempt to appease the player who wants to be a dragon without actually letting them be a dragon. We all know it's just not the same. This also precludes DCC's lowest level dragon, the pseudodragon.

∗ ∗ ∗

DRAGON

Art by my good friend, KittyBiscuits.

Dragons are powerful winged reptilian creatures, each unique and rare. Most dragons are covetous, prideful, and solitary. You are not one such dragon, having chosen to accompany a band of adventurers - though likely out of self-interest or necessity. Even as a small dragon, somewhere between the size of a horse and an elephant, it is nigh impossible to do this without attracting significant unwanted attention.

Hit Die: Dragons use a d12 for their Hit Dice.

Movement: 30'. Dragons with wings can fly.

Alignment: A dragon may be of any alignment, and in fact may have an alignment by its very nature instead of by choice.

Weapon Training: A dragon walks into a tavern and quickly notices that the glasses are not ergonomically designed for it to be able to drink from them. What I'm trying to say is, dragons aren't exactly out there using human-designed items. Instead, it has...

Natural Weapons: Using their Action Dice, a dragon can use the following attacks once per round each at the listed Levels:

Level	Weapon	Damage	Note
1+	Claw	1d8
2+	Bite	1d12
4+	2nd claw	1d8	Use claw attacks as two-weapon fighting with 16 AGI (one Action but both claws use -1d).
6+	Tail slap	1d20	If used between two movements (even across two Rounds), movements must be in different directions (at least 90°). Essentially, using this move requires turning.
8+	Wing buffet	2d12	Cannot move and use this attack in the same Round.
10	Crush	3d12	Using this attack forces you prone.

Breath Weapon: Per Table III on p. 407, except damage is d12+2*CL and the Saving Throw is modified by Luck. Using the breath weapon costs an Action Die and can be used a number of times daily equal to the dragon's Level divided by 3 (round up).

Luck: A dragon adds its Luck modifier to the DC of Saving Throws against its breath weapon(s).

Action Dice: A dragon can use its Action Dice for attacking, casting spells, or its breath weapon.

Martial and Unique Powers: At levels 4 and 8, dragons roll on the Martial Powers table and permanently gain the listed power.

At levels 3, 6, and 9, dragons roll on the Unique Powers table and permanently gain the listed power.

Magic: Dragons are able to cast spells as a Wizard, though they do not research them as humans do. Dragons gain only a handful of new spells as they mature rather than discovering them in nature or stealing them from grimoires. In fact, dragons are unable to cast-from-scroll as Wizards, and do not have access to Patron Bond/Invoke Patron. While it is technically possible for a dragon to gain a patron through other means, it would be highly unusual.

Each level up, consult the Dragon Class Table to find the level of the spell learned and determine the spell randomly.

Languages: Dragons can speak Draconic and Common, plus languages randomly determined by their INT modifier (as Wizard).

Lvl	Atk	Crit Die/Table	Action Dice	Spell Learned	Ref	Fort	Will
1	+1	1d4/DR	1d20	none	+0	+0	+0
2	+2	1d5/DR	1d20	Lvl 1	+1	+1	+1
3	+2	1d6/DR	1d20	none	+1	+1	+1
4	+3	1d8/DR	1d20	Lvl 1	+2	+2	+2
5	+4	1d10/DR	1d20+1d14	Lvl 2	+2	+2	+2
6	+5	1d12/DR	1d20+1d16	none	+3	+3	+3
7	+5	1d14/DR	1d20+1d20	Lvl 2	+3	+3	+3
8	+6	1d16/DR	1d20+1d20	Lvl 1	+4	+4	+4
9	+6	1d20/DR	1d20+1d20	none	+4	+4	+4
10	+7	1d24/DR	1d20+1d20+1d14	Lvl 3	+5	+5	+5

Level	Title
1	Whelp
2	Drake
3	Dragonling
4	Wyvern
5	Wyrmling

Fleshbones

Flesh to Stone's reversed counterpart, Stone to Flesh, is well known for being the cure to a Medusa attack. It's a very intelligent spell. It can look at the structures present in stone and infer that it used to be a creature, recreating that creature and all its organs, even preserving the mind and soul. This all seems to be mostly taken for granted but it's very impressive when you think about it.

Of course, any apprentice learning this spell begins to wonder about the effects of casting Stone to Flesh on actual stone - rocks that were never alive to begin with, inanimate objects and castle walls. The results are almost universally unpleasant as the spell attempts to reconstruct tissue, organs, and other functional structures where there were none to begin with. If it manages to create something alive then it won't live long, though there are some notable exceptions such as the Necrolith and Mortimer's Throbbing Castle.

The more material you give the spell to work with, the more it can achieve. On the flip side, the spell can also make good use of high levels of detail. A few talented gastronomancers have carved beautifully marbled steaks out of actual marble. Some particularly foolish mages have attempted to use the spell on carved statues to create an artificial human; the results of that are far worse than "unpleasant".

Bone really muddies the waters (don't get me started on Stone to Mud) when it comes to being made of stone or flesh, which I'm sure you can imagine is very confusing if you are a spell and your goal is to turn one into the other. Bones are made up of stuff you can find in rocks and crystals but they have a cellular structure like living flesh. Sometimes there's even a little bit of residual soul-stuff. And yet, there isn't the macro-structure a spell would usually study to recreate a functioning organism - no sinews, no muscles, no blood vessels, no nerves, no organs.

Flesh to Stone has the expected effect on skeletal remains: it turns them to stone. Stone to Flesh usually fails, but under the right circumstances - when all other organic matter is decomposed or removed and the bones are dry - the spell can mistake bone for stone. If a detectable amount of soul essence lingers, the spell might even take that as a sign that this was once a living organism that turned to stone. And to be fair, it isn't entirely wrong.

The way it tries to "reconstruct" this creature, however, is absolutely wrong.

Not finding any structures from which to reform muscles and organs, the spell can sometimes set to work on creating its own. The spell cannot add any matter, only convert what is there. The end result is a monstrosity that is superficially similar to the common necromantic skeleton found in tombs, in that it walks mindlessly and attacks intruders - yet this skeleton is entirely made of soft flesh, coated with skin and filled with blood as you'd expect from any fleshy creature. It can barely hold up its own weight.

The residual soul essence occupies the new body, so for all intents and purposes this is a true undead like any wight or ghoul.

∗ ∗ ∗

AI-generated, I am not an artist.

Fleshbones

Initiative: +0

Attack: punch +0 melee (1d3) or by weapon +0 melee

AC: 8; HD: 2d4 (5 HP);

Movement: 20'; Action Dice: 1d20;

Special: undead, half damage from blunt weapons, horrific, confused biology

Alignment: Chaotic

Saves: Fort +0, Ref +0, Will +0;

Horrific: When injured, the gory reveal of the monster's composition causes psychological trauma to anyone who was not expecting the bones to be fleshy. Bring your own sanity system, here's a good one.

Confused Biology: When killed, there is a 50% chance it is cut/broken where it is hit and the separate parts survive independently due to unusual organ arrangements (treat as two new Fleshbones). Once these parts are killed, they stay dead. All broken parts have 5' speed, except a complete pair of legs which has 30'. d4: (1) decapitated, (2) arm severed, (3) legs separated from torso, (4) leg severed.

Gonzo versus Kitchen Sink

In which I pretend I can define terms that are older than I am, in a niche I haven't been part of for that long.

∗ ∗ ∗

The terms "gonzo" and "kitchen sink" are both used to describe fantasy settings with a mishmash of incongruous elements, but the two terms feel very different. DCC is often referred to as gonzo. It's not often referred to as kitchen sink. I feel like there's a reason for that, but it's hard to find much discussion about the distinction between the two. Sometimes, the words even appear to be used interchangeably.

A kitchen sink setting is, fairly obviously, one that includes everything (and the kitchen sink). There's cowboys and there's also aliens.

A gonzo setting is one that includes mismatched genres. There's cowboys and there's also aliens... wait a minute, how is that different?

Some games provide a setting with dozens of races to choose from and large distant regions with different themes and levels of technology. People argue about whether guns belong in D&D all the time but you can totally do it in a way that doesn't even feel slightly out of place. Easily, even. You can have a full tavern of adventurers where every character is a different species. How is that sustainable, anyway? There's not enough people of any one species to even reproduce reliably, let alone maintain a diverse genepool! My point is that the half-fish-half-goat-half-man tap-dancing in the middle of the room might as well just be a regular dude. The kitchen sink allows you to justify almost anything. That's the point.

Contrast this with a setting where 90% of the population is human. Just regular medieval peasants. One day they're all sitting in the tavern with like one dwarf, and this fishmangoat cartwheels through the doorway and starts tapdancing in the middle of the room. That's pretty weird, so the townspeople all pull out their shotguns and start asking who he works for.

That one is getting a little closer to gonzo. In this case, the incongruity is the whole point. It's bizarre but nobody seems to care. It's not a given that the fishmangoat or shotguns exist, but you can't definitively say they don't, so when one rocks up it might as well just be Tuesday.

The kitchen sink appears to be created with the goal of allowing anyone to do anything, to be anyone, to have full customizability. Some games try to give you everything to prove that you can do anything.

Gonzo is a bit harder to pin down, but to me it appears to be about subverting expectations, surprising the players (or audience, depending on medium). The contrast between cowboys and aliens is what makes it interesting when aliens show up in your wild west campaign. This isn't achievable in a kitchen sink, where everyone knows aliens are part of the setting because you can choose to be one during character creation.