Splitting Race and Occupation

d10	Race
1-7	Human
8	Dwarf
9	Elf
10	Halfling

Well, that was easy. See you next week!

∗ ∗ ∗

Of course there's more to it than that. While DCC's default Occupation table provides a great spread of peasants and bundles race in neatly, sometimes it becomes necessary to separate the two. Using default tables, obviously any homebrewed or additional races will not be accounted for, and any alternative Occupation tables (such as the one I made for prisoners) need to choose between bundling the default demihuman races (thus limiting the setting) in or not providing for race at all (thus not allowing all the standard possibilities without some other system).

Using the table at the top of the article, you can determine race with the same probabilities as in the core rules. You can then roll on the Occupation table and ignore the race entirely - it isn't actually a problem if you get human haberdashers, halfling falconers, or dwarven gongfarmers. This is a quick and dirty solution, but if you want to give each race its own unique flavour it becomes necessary to provide an Occupation table for each race. I've seen a lot of homebrew races come with these tables anyway, and for ones that don't you really only need a table of 6, 8 or 10 results.

Why would you need to do this? Mostly so that you can fit custom races in and make them playable in a funnel using the same random generation method you would for a standard setting. I personally like the way races are distributed at random in DCC, giving a mostly human population and making the dwarves and elves feel more special. If the Judge wants to include a new race, it's a little at odds with the rest of the game for players to simply choose to be this one rare, unique race.

Here's an example of a table with custom races.

d%	Race
1-75	Human
75-79	Dwarf
80-84	Elf
85-89	Halfling
90-94	Gnome
95	Minotaur
96	Kenku
97	Lizardman
98	Bearfolk
99	Android
100	Dragon

I'm not quite happy with that, though. I'd probably condense the list into subgroups, both to make it compact and also to easily be able to edit the available races while maintaining proportionate amounts of demihuman and weirder races. Here we have a neat 75% humans, 19% demihumans, 4% beastfolk and 2% exotic, and this will remain true no matter how many weird races I slot into the exotic category. It's unusual for any one of those to show up in an adventuring party, let alone multiple. The intent is to make the funnels where these appear memorable.

d%	Race
1-75	Human
76-94	Demihuman, d4: (1) Dwarf, (2) Elf, (3) Halfling, (4) Gnome
95-98	Beastfolk, d4: (1) Minotaur, (2) Kenku, (3) Lizardman, (4) Bearfolk
99-100	Exotic, d3: (1) Android, (2) Dragon, (3) Ooze

The Ooze wouldn't neatly fit on the previous table because it would make exotic races more common if it took up a whole other percentage point - a demonstration of how unusual races can easily be slotted in without disrupting the population.

For any cases where it matters, you can slot in a race-specific custom Occupation table. It might not matter if you have a bearfolk turnip farmer, but a dragon turnip farmer is going to turn some heads.

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

Beastfolk (concept)

Monsters

Bunyip

Charger

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

Vancian Freeform Magic for DCC

Houserules

Mighty Deeds for Non-Mighty Folk

Splitting Race and Occupation

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.