Dysfunctional Rules IX: 1d3 Dysfunctions from the 8th Level List

[Jormengand]

Actually no, that's not the way it's written. "Trained Only" refers to the rules about making skill checks with the skill in question. Speak Language has no skill checks. And one can never have ranks in Speak Language. Spending a skill point grants a new language known rather than ranks in Speak Language and characters start with a certain number of languages known.

Actually, yes, that is the way that it's written. The rules on trained only skills are, in their entirety, "Many skills can be used only by someone who is trained in them." You don't have to be rolling for you to be unable to use the skills.

[flare'90]

Actually, yes, that is the way that it's written. The rules on trained only skills are, in their entirety, "Many skills can be used only by someone who is trained in them." You don't have to be rolling for you to be unable to use the skills.

Quote on that?
Untrained Skill Checks

Generally, if your character attempts to use a skill he or she does not possess, you make a skill check as normal. The skill modifier doesn’t have a skill rank added in because the character has no ranks in the skill. Any other applicable modifiers, such as the modifier for the skill’s key ability, are applied to the check.

Many skills can be used only by someone who is trained in them.

Additionally, the very first sentence in the Using Skills section:

When your character uses a skill, you make a skill check to see how well he or she does.

On the other han, we have Speak Language, in particular this sentence:

Try Again

Not applicable. There are no Speak Language checks to fail.

Also this:

The Speak Language skill doesn’t work like other skills.

[Jormengand]

Yes, and only one of those lines talks about what Trained Only means. Incidentally, this also means that whenever one Speaks Language, one both does and does not roll for it.

[ShurikVch]

Out of curiosity, how do the average and maximum weights compare?

Chitine, male
Height: 3' 9" (average)/4' 5" (maximum)
Weight: 85 lbs. (average)/ 131 lbs. (maximum)

Dwarf, female
Height: 3' 11" (average)/4' 3" (maximum)
Weight: 124 lbs. (average)/196 lbs. (maximum)

Also, Grippli -"humanoid tree frogs" (were mentioned in the "Half-Pint Heroes" article - along with Chitine and Tasloi); article in Dragon #324 says they're Small-sized, but male Grippli don't get bigger than 1' 9" and 28 lbs. (for comparison - Imp and Myconid Junior Worker are Tiny, but 2' tall)

Centaurs riding horses... God help us.

How about the Pegasi (or Unicorns) riding horses?


Note from the Book of Vile Darkness:

Disease Host (Ex): At 1st level, a cancer mage suffers no ill effects of diseases, except for purely cosmetic ones such as boils, pockmarks, watery eyes, blackened skin, hair loss, foul smell, and so on.

OK
But...

d% Description/Effect
01–10 Body turns to formless jelly; character dies.

Does it mean some Cancer Mage may be turned into "formless jelly", but suffer "no ill effects" from it?

[Morphic tide]

For that matter, the ability says you are immune to the negative effects of diseases at first level, rather than saying you gain immunity to those negative effects at first level.

Which means that a perfectly valid literal interpretation of the wording is that only 1st level Cancer Mages have the immunity.

Edit: Also, Charisma penalties for having your body covered in puss and sores are absent for most diseases. If present, the Cancer Mage is immune to the social stigma of being obviously filled with plagues.

[ShurikVch]

For that matter, the ability says you are immune to the negative effects of diseases at first level, rather than saying you gain immunity to those negative effects at first level.

Which means that a perfectly valid literal interpretation of the wording is that only 1st level Cancer Mages have the immunity.

Quote was incomplete:

The cancer mage becomes a carrier of every disease he encounters, though he remains immune to most of their effects.

[PallentisLunam]

But...Does it mean some Cancer Mage may be turned into "formless jelly", but suffer "no ill effects" from it?

Turning into formless jelly and dying would seem to be more than a cosmetic effect, therefore the Cancer Mage is immune to this effect

For that matter, the ability says you are immune to the negative effects of diseases at first level, rather than saying you gain immunity to those negative effects at first level.

Which means that a perfectly valid literal interpretation of the wording is that only 1st level Cancer Mages have the immunity.

Edit: Also, Charisma penalties for having your body covered in puss and sores are absent for most diseases. If present, the Cancer Mage is immune to the social stigma of being obviously filled with plagues.

Deliberate misreadings to create a dysfunction where a functional reading can be had are not dysfunctions.

The fact that the rules don't cover every eventuality is not a dysfunction.

[The Viscount]

The Marruspawn Abomination is a monster that doesn't quite make sense.

It has a +10 insight bonus to AC with no ability describing how. I can't exactly say that it needs to explain that, but that's exactly the type of ability that is typically explained. More concerning is the fact that it makes iterative attacks with its claw, which you would definitely need an ability to explain. Bizarrely in its full attack its secondary bite is made at a higher attack bonus than even its first attack. I know that statblocks can have typos, but that's an error above and beyond the norm. The marruspawn abomination is also one of very few, if not the only, monster that has two claws but can only attack with one for some reason. This is especially relevant since it took multiattack, despite only having 2 natural weapons. It also took blindfight, despite the fact that it has blindsight out to 120 feet, so a confusing monster on many counts.

[Inevitability]

The Marruspawn Abomination is a monster that doesn't quite make sense.

It has a +10 insight bonus to AC with no ability describing how. I can't exactly say that it needs to explain that, but that's exactly the type of ability that is typically explained. More concerning is the fact that it makes iterative attacks with its claw, which you would definitely need an ability to explain. Bizarrely in its full attack its secondary bite is made at a higher attack bonus than even its first attack. I know that statblocks can have typos, but that's an error above and beyond the norm. The marruspawn abomination is also one of very few, if not the only, monster that has two claws but can only attack with one for some reason. This is especially relevant since it took multiattack, despite only having 2 natural weapons. It also took blindfight, despite the fact that it has blindsight out to 120 feet, so a confusing monster on many counts.

At higher levels, especially amongst the semi-divine monsters, insight bonuses to AC are common. Like a dozen critters in the ELH have it, reasonably often without explanation.

Also, the kolyarut has a vampiric touch natural attack that it can also use for iteratives. No idea whether it's similar: I don't have sandstorm on hand.

[Inevitability]

The Dark Scholar prestige class has the following optional ability:

Among the Dragons: Knowledge (history) 18 ranks; age one year for every two years that pass.

I'm fairly sure that by strict RAW, someone with this would age 1.5 times as fast as other people. They live for two years, aging normally, then suddenly age another year because two years have passed.

[ShurikVch]

Turning into formless jelly and dying would seem to be more than a cosmetic effect, therefore the Cancer Mage is immune to this effect

"Dying" is the "ill effect" there; "formless jelly" is "cosmetic one"

[PallentisLunam]

"Dying" is the "ill effect" there; "formless jelly" is "cosmetic one"

In the absence of properly defined game terms we must use common language. The word cosmetic is defined as: "affecting only the appearance of something rather than its substance" and while the only game effect listed for becoming a formless jelly is death it would seem that at the very least a formless jelly would be unable to move, speak, see, hear, or dozens of other things. Therefore the word cosmetic cannot apply to becoming a formless jelly.

[Dagroth]

DMG, page 204.



The last one's pretty weird, (can a 20th-level paladin not use their own special mount anymore?), but the first one seems to resolve this dysfunction.

Read it again... it's CR, not HD. A Paladin's mount gets more HD as the Paladin goes up in levels... thus increasing its CR.

[Inevitability]

Read it again... it's CR, not HD. A Paladin's mount gets more HD as the Paladin goes up in levels... thus increasing its CR.

Every three magical beast HD increase CR by 1. A heavy warhorse (CR 2) with 8 additional HD (+2 or +3 CR) would still be far too weak for a 20th-level paladin, according to the text. Even if you consider each special ability worth another +1 CR increase, it's apparently still too weak.

[zergling.exe]

Every three magical beast HD increase CR by 1. A heavy warhorse (CR 2) with 8 additional HD (+2 or +3 CR) would still be far too weak for a 20th-level paladin, according to the text. Even if you consider each special ability worth another +1 CR increase, it's apparently still too weak.

It says

The mount’s Challenge Rating should be no more than 3 less than the rider's character level.

So a 20th level character could use any mount with a CR of up to 17. So a bog standard warhorse would be totally fine. The bigger problem is that you aren't allowed a mount until at least level 4, as before then all creatures have too high of a CR to be appropriate.

[Inevitability]

It says
So a 20th level character could use any mount with a CR of up to 17. So a bog standard warhorse would be totally fine. The bigger problem is that you aren't allowed a mount until at least level 4, as before then all creatures have too high of a CR to be appropriate.

Inevitability can't read: Exhibit 1. Thanks for fixing my error!

And hey, at least we got a new dysfunction out of it, even if it wasn't the one I expected.

[ShurikVch]

In the absence of properly defined game terms we must use common language. The word cosmetic is defined as: "affecting only the appearance of something rather than its substance" and while the only game effect listed for becoming a formless jelly is death

No.
There's a RAW thread, not RAI, RACSD, or whatever
Things do exactly what text says they do - and nothing more
For example, let's compare it with Shadowlands Taint from the Oriental Adventures.
Among the possible effects there are such things as "Eye clouds or blood vessels break, obscuring vision", "Uncontrollable seizures that wrack the body with spasms", "Fits of uncontrollable, disturbing laughter", "Lungs eaten away from inside - wet, labored, painful breathing", and "Fingers or toes begin to web and fuse"
Should it affect the creature by the "common language"?
Heck, yes! It's horrible!
Clouded eyes should ruin Search and Spot checks, fused fingers - Open Lock and Sleight of Hand attempts, uncontrollable laughter - negate any chances to be stealthy (and may impede social interactions), and seizures may struck mid-combat (making tainted creature a "sitting duck") or at night (depriving of expected night rest)
But does it actually affects the tainted creature?
Um... No.
The only effect Shadowlands Taint do, by the RAW, is penalties to Con & Wis; the rest is - up to roleplay

it would seem that at the very least a formless jelly would be unable to move, speak, see, hear, or dozens of other things.

Why? For example, Klyntar are able to do it all just fine, despite being rather formless and kinda jelly-like

[PallentisLunam]

No.
There's a RAW thread, not RAI, RACSD, or whatever
Things do exactly what text says they do - and nothing more
For example, let's compare it with Shadowlands Taint from the Oriental Adventures.
Among the possible effects there are such things as "Eye clouds or blood vessels break, obscuring vision", "Uncontrollable seizures that wrack the body with spasms", "Fits of uncontrollable, disturbing laughter", "Lungs eaten away from inside - wet, labored, painful breathing", and "Fingers or toes begin to web and fuse"
Should it affect the creature by the "common language"?
Heck, yes! It's horrible!
Clouded eyes should ruin Search and Spot checks, fused fingers - Open Lock and Sleight of Hand attempts, uncontrollable laughter - negate any chances to be stealthy (and may impede social interactions), and seizures may struck mid-combat (making tainted creature a "sitting duck") or at night (depriving of expected night rest)
But does it actually affects the tainted creature?
Um... No.
The only effect Shadowlands Taint do, by the RAW, is penalties to Con & Wis; the rest is - up to roleplay

I was not arguing that we should apply common definitions to create additional effects out of descriptive text. My point was that when provided with ambiguous terms that govern mechanical effects the order of operations should be to look for a D&D term and then to look for a common language definition.

For example, if a creature is blind. Well blind has a definition in English but it also has a definition in D&D. Deaf is the same way. However cosmetic is only defined in English not as a D&D term. Therefore we must use the English definition to delineate between which effects are cosmetic and which are not.

So, when presented with the following two scenarios can you tell which is a cosmetic change and which is more than cosmetic?

1) A person has a fully functioning arm that just so happens to have an oozing sore.

2) A person's arm is replaced with a jelly fish.

Why? For example, Klyntar are able to do it all just fine, despite being rather formless and kinda jelly-like

These do not exist in D&D so I don't know how they are evidence of anything, but even if you had gone black pudding, the effect of being a black pudding is not to die.

[ShurikVch]

I was not arguing that we should apply common definitions to create additional effects out of descriptive text. My point was that when provided with ambiguous terms that govern mechanical effects the order of operations should be to look for a D&D term and then to look for a common language definition.

For example, if a creature is blind. Well blind has a definition in English but it also has a definition in D&D. Deaf is the same way. However cosmetic is only defined in English not as a D&D term. Therefore we must use the English definition to delineate between which effects are cosmetic and which are not.

So, when presented with the following two scenarios can you tell which is a cosmetic change and which is more than cosmetic?

1) A person has a fully functioning arm that just so happens to have an oozing sore.

2) A person's arm is replaced with a jelly fish.

Look there: "death by jellification" is just a first (and most extreme) example in the line of similar negative effects.
Let's check them:

39–40 Legs become snake tails; speed reduced by half.

Would you call the "snake tails" "cosmetic" effect? Or would you say, I dunno, "You can't wear boots on your new snake tails. It isn't cosmetic. Cancer Mage is immune."?

37–38 Mouth seals forever; cannot speak.

Is sealed mouth a "cosmetic" effect?
(Side note: sealed forever mouth, apparently, don't prevent you from eating, drinking, or breathing with it; but you now can't use Drow Sign Language - because it's still "talking"! )

33–36 Become very thin; 1d6 Str and Con drain.

Would you disagree "very thin" is a "cosmetic" effect?

29–32 Fingers twist into tangles; 1d8 Dex drain.

How about this one?

24–28 Huge lump grows on head; 1d6 Int and Wis drain.

What's you will say about it? Is "huge lump" a "cosmetic" effect? Or what? It isn't because?.. You can't wear a helmet now?

21–23 Eyes fall out; permanent blindness.

Before you will say "But you can't see without eyes!", I link to the Taint rules:

Eye falls out, leaving gaping socket that glows with eerie green light

11–15 One arm becomes useless; 1d6 Str, Con, and Dex drain.
16–20 One leg becomes useless; 1d6 Str, Con, and Dex drain.

OK.
Those two are definitely not "cosmetic" - mostly, because "useless" isn't supposed to have clear visual signs

So, compare them to

Body turns to formless jelly; character dies.

Is "formless jelly" a "cosmetic" effect or not?

These do not exist in D&D so I don't know how they are evidence of anything, but even if you had gone black pudding, the effect of being a black pudding is not to die.

You said being jelly should prevent from moving, speaking, and so on; I used Klyntar as example to prove it's incorrect.
So what if they do not exist in D&D? We have other formless creatures - as you helpfully pointed, Black Pudding is an example. Amorphous Form spell make you shapeless, but not "unable to move, speak, see, hear, or dozens of other things".

[Malimar]

You can implant another personality fragment in your psicrystal. You gain the benefits of both psicrystal personalities. Your psicrystal’s personality adjusts and becomes a blend between all implanted personality fragments. From now on, when determining the abilities of your psicrystal, treat your manifester level as one higher than your normal manifester level.

The last clause does nothing, because psicrystal abilities are based on your psionic class level, not your manifester level.

[PallentisLunam]

Let's check them:Would you call the "snake tails" "cosmetic" effect? Or would you say, I dunno, "You can't wear boots on your new snake tails. It isn't cosmetic. Cancer Mage is immune."?

It makes no difference what I would do because I have no agency in this. The question is would snake tails fit the definition of cosmetic. So what is the definition of cosmetic? The definition that applies in this case is the second bullet point under the first definition.

Now, are snake tails a cosmetic change to legs? No. Therefore the Cancer Mage is immune to this effect.

Is sealed mouth a "cosmetic" effect?

Is a sealed mouth only cosmetically different from a working mouth? No. Therefore the Cancer Mage is immune to this effect.

Would you disagree "very thin" is a "cosmetic" effect?

I would agree that someone who is very thin might be merely cosmetically different than someone who is very fat. However the mechanical effects of this condition, the strength and constitution damage, would not apply because Cancer Mages are immune to the mechanical effects of diseases.

What's you will say about it? Is "huge lump" a "cosmetic" effect? Or what? It isn't because?.. You can't wear a helmet now?

The lump is cosmetic. The ability damage is mechanical. Who says you can't wear a helmet if you have a lump on your head. How big is "huge" and why couldn't the helmet be specially made to fit over the lump?

Before you will say "But you can't see without eyes!", I link to the Taint rules

Sure, but the Taint rules don't apply when one loses their eyes from an unrelated disease do they?

OK.
Those two are definitely not "cosmetic" - mostly, because "useless" isn't supposed to have clear visual signs

I think you might be beginning to understand the argument I've been making. These do not apply because they have only mechanical effects. However just because a condition does have cosmetic effects doesn't mean that the mechanical effects must also apply.

So, compare them to: Is "formless jelly" a "cosmetic" effect or not?

As I have made clear repeatedly, it is not. A creature becoming a formless jelly is more than a cosmetic change.

So what if they do not exist in D&D? We have other formless creatures - as you helpfully pointed, Black Pudding is an example. Amorphous Form spell make you shapeless, but not "unable to move, speak, see, hear, or dozens of other things".

But neither your Klyntar nor D&D's black pudding are formless jellies. They are something much different and more specific and they are both quite alive. Also Amorphous Form does not make a creature into a dead formless jelly.

[ShurikVch]

It makes no difference what I would do because I have no agency in this. The question is would snake tails fit the definition of cosmetic. So what is the definition of cosmetic? The definition that applies in this case is the second bullet point under the first definition.

I dunno how it works for you, but I got a Google search; second link is Cosmetic Capital "the home of genuine, branded cosmetics in Australia at the best prices."

Now, are snake tails a cosmetic change to legs? No. Therefore the Cancer Mage is immune to this effect.

I would agree that someone who is very thin might be merely cosmetically different than someone who is very fat. However the mechanical effects of this condition, the strength and constitution damage, would not apply because Cancer Mages are immune to the mechanical effects of diseases.

The lump is cosmetic. The ability damage is mechanical. Who says you can't wear a helmet if you have a lump on your head. How big is "huge" and why couldn't the helmet be specially made to fit over the lump?

Hey, there!..
It's looks like somebody there is missing the point
(And I'm suspecting it's not me)
So, one more time: my statement may be summed as

A-B X; Y.

(A and B are roll results, and X and Y are subsequent effects)
My point is: Y is clearly harmful, thus Cancer Mage is immune; but being immune to Y doesn't make him also immune to X (unless X is harmful too)
Your counter-point: "No, X isn't cosmetic, thus Cancer Mage should be immune anyway!"
So, what's your definition of "cosmetic"?!
According to Cambridge Dictionary, "cosmetic" is:

• substances that you put on your face or body that are intended to improve your appearance: We sell a wide range of cosmetics and toiletries at a very reasonable price.
• Corrective changes, etc. are intended to make you believe that something is better when, really, the problem has not been solved: They were offered a few cosmetic improvements to their working conditions, but nothing of significance.
• used to refer to substances or treatments that are intended to improve your appearance: a cosmetic cream

Dunno how it's for you, but for me - second definition is the spot-on

Sure, but the Taint rules don't apply when one loses their eyes from an unrelated disease do they?

Yes and no; it's the good indicator of maybe-slightly-unexpected fact: in D&D world, lack of eyes doesn't mean lack of sight
(I meal there are all those demons and dragons with literal fire in their eyes, and skeletal undeads with no eyes at all)
Thus, loss of eyes isn't harmful effect there - blindness is; our Cancer Mage will be eyeless, but sighted

As I have made clear repeatedly, it is not. A creature becoming a formless jelly is more than a cosmetic change.

Which is still up to be proved...

But neither your Klyntar nor D&D's black pudding are formless jellies.

Ochre Jelly:

This creature resembles a giant, dark yellow amoeba.
...
An ochre jelly can grow to a diameter of about 15 feet and a thickness of about 6 inches, but can compress its body to fit into cracks as small as 1 inch wide.

Is it good enough for you? Amoebas are formless by definition (and this one even have "Jelly" in the name!)

They are something much different and more specific and they are both quite alive. Also Amorphous Form does not make a creature into a dead formless jelly.

Wait a minute...
What's you mean by "alive" and "dead"?
Who said "dead formless jelly"?
Definitely not me!
Do You Want to Build a Straw man?

[PallentisLunam]

I dunno how it works for you, but I got a Google search; second link is Cosmetic Capital "the home of genuine, branded cosmetics in Australia at the best prices."

Well for me google starts with a definition before the links. When getting into definitions I prefer Webster:

Cosmetic: done or made for the sake of appearance : Not substantive

So, one more time: my statement may be summed as(A and B are roll results, and X and Y are subsequent effects)
My point is: Y is clearly harmful, thus Cancer Mage is immune; but being immune to Y doesn't make him also immune to X (unless X is harmful too)
Your counter-point: "No, X isn't cosmetic, thus Cancer Mage should be immune anyway!"

I would phrase my counter more clearly as "Well, X is harmful; therefore, the Cancer Mage is immune."
Also, X and Y are tied together. They are cause and effect. A creature becomes a formless jelly and dies because of it.

You are arguing that there is a dysfunction when a Cancer Mage acquires the detrimental effects of a disease that causes no detriment.

"Turning into "formless jelly" but suffering "no ill effects"

I am arguing that a Cancer Mage cannot acquire any detrimental effects from a disease.

So, what's your definition of "cosmetic"?!
According to Cambridge Dictionary, "cosmetic" is:

• substances that you put on your face or body that are intended to improve your appearance: We sell a wide range of cosmetics and toiletries at a very reasonable price.
• Corrective changes, etc. are intended to make you believe that something is better when, really, the problem has not been solved: They were offered a few cosmetic improvements to their working conditions, but nothing of significance.
• used to refer to substances or treatments that are intended to improve your appearance: a cosmetic cream

Dunno how it's for you, but for me - second definition is the spot-on

Well no the second definition isn't all that spot on since it's talking about "corrective changes to make something better" which doesn't sound remotely like "boils, pockmarks, watery eyes, blackened skin, hair loss, foul smell, and so on"

Ochre Jelly:Is it good enough for you? Amoebas are formless by definition (and this one even have "Jelly" in the name!)

God there's a loud whistling noise in this forum right now. In D&D an Ochre Jelly is an Orchre Jelly, a Black Pudding is a Black Pudding, in the Marvel Universe a Klyntar is a Klyntar. My point is that these are creatures that are by their natures jellies and oozes. The jelly created when a creature is affected by the Warp Touch disease is not a creature (or more properly it is no longer a creature by virtue of being dead) and it is also obviously, not the Cancer Mage's natural state. Therefore to say that there are creatures with the properties of being "formless" and "gelatinous" is a complete non sequitur, because we have no reason to believe that the Cancer Mage becomes like one of these creatures in the event they could be turned into a formless jelly.

Wait a minute...
What's you mean by "alive" and "dead"?
Who said "dead formless jelly"?
Definitely not me!
Do You Want to Build a Straw man?

Oh boy, do we think because we mentioned a logical fallacy that we've won the internet? See the above explanation.

Also, to clarify, you brought up Klyntars, and I responded that if you're going to talk about random creatures you should keep it in the same fictional universe.

Under normal circumstances the jelly created by this roll on the Warp Touch table is formless and dead. It is also jelly. As such just because there are live creatures that can be described as formless and gelatinous and that there is a spell that allows a creature to adopt and formless and gelatinous shape doesn't mean that a Cancer Mage vulnerable to becoming formless and gelatinous due to Warp Touch would acquire the properties of the creatures or a recipient of the spell. The existence of the spell and the creatures is entirely irrelevant.

[No brains]

Have we ever discussed how some things with 'no discernible anatomy' are described as having discernible anatomy? Shambling mound has a 'brain' and ocher jelly is an amoeba- which has organelles, or at least a nucleus.

Also, can amoebas squeeze really small IRL? Like I know they ARE small, but can they really compress to the degree that ocher jellies can?

[ShurikVch]

Cosmetic: done or made for the sake of appearance : Not substantive

Yes.
So?..
Being turned into "formless jelly" by the Warp Touch have no mechanical effect - thus, "Not substantive"

I would phrase my counter more clearly as "Well, X is harmful; therefore, the Cancer Mage is immune."

Note: out of all mentioned effects only sealed mouth and useless limbs could be considered "harmful" - the rest are have no clear mechanical effects, thus - "Not substantive"
Side question: what's your definition of "harmful"?
For example, roll 92 gives medusa's gaze (it doesn't says it may be "switched off"); 93 - uncontrollable poison touch, which may harm friends, or just random people, (who would turn hostile because of it); 94 - uncontrollable stench in 5' radius (required Fort save) - would work so well in social interactions, or during stealth missions. So, are they "harmful" by your definition or not?

Also, X and Y are tied together. They are cause and effect. A creature becomes a formless jelly and dies because of it.

Prove it.
Because for me - it's just two separate effects

You are arguing that there is a dysfunction when a Cancer Mage acquires the detrimental effects of a disease that causes no detriment.

Yes.
Exactly.
Just like boils and pockmarks

I am arguing that a Cancer Mage cannot acquire any detrimental effects from a disease.

What's your definitions of "detrimental"?

Well no the second definition isn't all that spot on since it's talking about "corrective changes to make something better" which doesn't sound remotely like "boils, pockmarks, watery eyes, blackened skin, hair loss, foul smell, and so on"

What? Are you discriminating against lepers? Are you some kind of leper-hater? Lepers are citizens too!
On more serious note: there are almost no diseases which improve the appearance (and certainly - not in game); are you arguing "cosmetic" effects don't actually exist?

God there's a loud whistling noise in this forum right now. In D&D an Ochre Jelly is an Orchre Jelly, a Black Pudding is a Black Pudding, in the Marvel Universe a Klyntar is a Klyntar. My point is that these are creatures that are by their natures jellies and oozes.

Yes.
So what?
"Nature" in D&D may be changed quite easily
For example, suddenly grow working wings is clearly "unnatural", but roll 91 does exactly it

The jelly created when a creature is affected by the Warp Touch disease is not a creature (or more properly it is no longer a creature by virtue of being dead)

It's incorrect.
Dead creatures are still creatures.

and it is also obviously, not the Cancer Mage's natural state. Therefore to say that there are creatures with the properties of being "formless" and "gelatinous" is a complete non sequitur, because we have no reason to believe that the Cancer Mage becomes like one of these creatures in the event they could be turned into a formless jelly.

Actually, we have some big reasons to believe in it: since there is a whole type of creatures who aren't dead or hampered by their natural state, and spell which cause exactly the same (except with even less restrictions), so it looks like a solid proof to formlessness in general being non-harmful.

Also, to clarify, you brought up Klyntars, and I responded that if you're going to talk about random creatures you should keep it in the same fictional universe.

To clarify: I used out-of-universe example to avoid complains about Oozes being Mindless or Blind (which is, in fact, not a problem at all, but I just don't wanted explain it too)

Under normal circumstances the jelly created by this roll on the Warp Touch table is formless and dead. It is also jelly. As such just because there are live creatures that can be described as formless and gelatinous and that there is a spell that allows a creature to adopt and formless and gelatinous shape doesn't mean that a Cancer Mage vulnerable to becoming formless and gelatinous due to Warp Touch would acquire the properties of the creatures or a recipient of the spell. The existence of the spell and the creatures is entirely irrelevant.

See above.

[PallentisLunam]

Being turned into "formless jelly" by the Warp Touch has no mechanical effect - thus, "Not substantive"
Note: out of all mentioned effects only sealed mouth and useless limbs could be considered "harmful" - the rest are have no clear mechanical effects, thus - "Not substantive"

Just because there is not a defined mechanical effect doesn't mean the change isn't substantive. How can being turned into formless jelly be considered less harmful than a useless limb? Being turned into formless jelly means that all of your limbs become useless!

Side question: what's your definition of "harmful"?
For example, roll 92 gives medusa's gaze (it doesn't says it may be "switched off"); 93 - uncontrollable poison touch, which may harm friends, or just random people, (who would turn hostile because of it); 94 - uncontrollable stench in 5' radius (required Fort save) - would work so well in social interactions, or during stealth missions. So, are they "harmful" by your definition or not?

Once again, my definitions are not relevant. Apply your google-fu until you get a definition that fits the situation.
The language of the ability in question states that the Cancer Mage suffers no ill effects. Therefore he or she might still, even inadvertently, inflict the ill effects of his or her carried diseases. It becomes not just a question of harmful or not but of harmful to the Cancer Mage or not.

Prove it.
Because for me - it's just two separate effects

Okay, let's argue like three-year-olds:
Prove it.
Because for me - it's just two aspects of the same effect.

Yes.
Exactly.
Just like boils and pockmarks

Wait... What?
The rule says that a Cancer Mage suffers no ill effects from diseases except things such as boils and pockmarks. If the rule makes a specific exception for something you can't say that the exception makes the rule dysfunctional.

What's your definitions of "detrimental"?

Google it.

What? Are you discriminating against lepers? Are you some kind of leper-hater? Lepers are citizens too!
On more serious note: there are almost no diseases which improve the appearance (and certainly - not in game); are you arguing "cosmetic" effects don't actually exist?

No, I'm saying that the definition you chose to apply doesn't fit the situation. The definition given by the British version of the Cambridge Dictionary was "insubstantial improvements" the definition given by the Webster dictionary was "insubstantial changes"
I am arguing that boils, pockmarks, colors, height, weight, etc. are cosmetic effects and that snake legs, sealed mouth, useless limbs, and formless jelly are not cosmetic effects.

Yes.
So what?
"Nature" in D&D may be changed quite easily
For example, suddenly grow working wings is clearly "unnatural", but roll 91 does exactly it

Once again, not my point. We have no reason to think that if a Cancer Mage becomes formless jelly they would be able to function like an ooze or like a creature under the effects of an Amorphous Form spell. They would just be a pile of formless jelly, nothing more, nothing less.

It's incorrect.
Dead creatures are still creatures.

Yes, dead creatures are still creatures. What are their remains? Their bodies are not creatures. Their bodies become objects. A creature killed by the formless jelly effect of Warp Touch is still a creature, but their body becomes formless jelly and dies.

Actually, we have some big reasons to believe in it: since there is a whole type of creatures who aren't dead or hampered by their natural state, and spell which cause exactly the same (except with even less restrictions), so it looks like a solid proof to formlessness in general being non-harmful.

Those examples are not relevant. Formlessness might not be harmful to oozes or creatures affected by an Amorphous Form spell, but formlessness brought on by the Warp Touch disease is not caused by being an ooze or being the subject of an Amorphous Form spell. It is caused by being a victim of the Warp Touch disease, therefore we have no reason to apply the rules associated with the ooze creature type or the Amorphous Form spell.

[ShurikVch]

Just because there is not a defined mechanical effect doesn't mean the change isn't substantive. How can being turned into formless jelly be considered less harmful than a useless limb? Being turned into formless jelly means that all of your limbs become useless!

And once again you mixing RAI for RAW
Please, show me: where it said so?

Once again, my definitions are not relevant. Apply your google-fu until you get a definition that fits the situation.
...
Google it.

No, your definition is very relevant:
Firstly, we will check if it is correct or not
And secondly, it will prevent further strawmanning, where you will say "But it doesn't mean it!" until the cows come home

Okay, let's argue like three-year-olds:
Prove it.
Because for me - it's just two aspects of the same effect.

They're divided with semicolons.
Go refresh your punctuation rules.
If after the refreshing you will be still incapable to disprove my point, then your point was incorrect

Wait... What?
The rule says that a Cancer Mage suffers no ill effects from diseases except things such as boils and pockmarks. If the rule makes a specific exception for something you can't say that the exception makes the rule dysfunctional.

The thing here is: exceptions aren't so specific, but rather open-ended.
If something is caused by disease, but isn't outright harmful, then Cancer Mage keeps it

Once again, not my point. We have no reason to think that if a Cancer Mage becomes formless jelly they would be able to function like an ooze or like a creature under the effects of an Amorphous Form spell.

Actually, no - we have a reason to think so: RAW for the Disease Host CF

Yes, dead creatures are still creatures. What are their remains? Their bodies are not creatures. Their bodies become objects.

Go check the Raise Dead and Reincarnate spells - in both cases "Target:" line is "Dead creature touched"
Thus, "their bodies" are still creatures - otherwise, spells wouldn't work

A creature killed by the formless jelly effect of Warp Touch is still a creature, but their body becomes formless jelly and dies.

But "dying" is a harmful effect - thus, Cancer Mage is immune

Those examples are not relevant. Formlessness might not be harmful to oozes or creatures affected by an Amorphous Form spell, but formlessness brought on by the Warp Touch disease is not caused by being an ooze or being the subject of an Amorphous Form spell. It is caused by being a victim of the Warp Touch disease, therefore we have no reason to apply the rules associated with the ooze creature type or the Amorphous Form spell.

Those examples are very relevant, because they prove "formlessness" isn't harmful by itself; victim dies not because the body "turns to formless jelly", but because "character dies".

[Morphic tide]

Okay, the Cancer Mage ability mentions such as in the list of things it gives immunity to, as well as ETC. So things not on that list, which is composed entirely of visual effects of infection typically caused by the processes behind the damage, are valid. Thus, "become formless jelly" is the visual effect that is tied to the effect of "die," and is thus not part of the stuff Cancer Mage gets immunity to, while the detrimental effect, "die," is negated. Similarly, "legs fuse into snake tail" is the visible component of the cause of "halved land move speed." Basically, the Cancer Mage gets all visible effects, no matter how apparently damaging or obviously causing the penalties, but fails to have actual mechanical penalties.

[nailbudday]

Have we ever discussed how some things with 'no discernible anatomy' are described as having discernible anatomy? Shambling mound has a 'brain' and ocher jelly is an amoeba- which has organelles, or at least a nucleus.

Also, can amoebas squeeze really small IRL? Like I know they ARE small, but can they really compress to the degree that ocher jellies can?

I see no reason an amoeba couldn't thin itself to the width of its largest organelle. Maybe not 1/180th of its normal width like an ochre jelly (15 ft -> 1 inch), but it could probably do some serious squeezing.

[PallentisLunam]

And once again you mixing RAI for RAW
Please, show me: where it said so?

A formless jelly has no limbs. If something does not exist then it cannot be useful. Therefore, the affected character goes from their starting number of useful limbs to zero useful limbs. Asking for a specific quotation using exactly the words you require is no way to argue. Sometimes careful logic must be applied at several steps to reach a consistent conclusion.

No, your definition is very relevant:
Firstly, we will check if it is correct or not
And secondly, it will prevent further strawmanning, where you will say "But it doesn't mean it!" until the cows come home

My definitions can be found in any American English dictionary you care to use. I'm not your Language Arts teacher. I will however serve as your philosophy teacher for a moment and reiterate that Strawmanning doesn't apply here. Even if I said that you are using words in ways that don't fit the definition of those words that is not Strawmanning.

They're divided with semicolons.
Go refresh your punctuation rules.
If after the refreshing you will be still incapable to disprove my point, then your point was incorrect

The column is labeled "Description/Effect" not "Effect 1/Effect 2". The former is the cause, the later is the effect. Those entries with no semicolon are only descriptive and contain merely cosmetic effects.

The thing here is: exceptions aren't so specific, but rather open-ended.
If something is caused by disease, but isn't outright harmful, then Cancer Mage keeps it

No. If something is caused by disease, but is only cosmetic, then the Cancer Mage keeps it. If it causes a substantive change then the Cancer Mage is immune to it.

Actually, no - we have a reason to think so: RAW for the Disease Host CF

If the Cancer Mage became formless jell he or she would be this

Spoiler

Show

Not this

Spoiler

Show

One is formless jelly the other is a creature that is formless and gelatinous. Even if the Cancer Mage survived he would be unable to move like an ooze or a creature under the effects of an Amorphous Form spell because neither of those are formless jellies. They are, instead, things that have the qualities of being formless and gelatinous. It's kind of like how a square is a rectangle but not all rectangles are squares.

Go check the Raise Dead and Reincarnate spells - in both cases "Target:" line is "Dead creature touched"
Thus, "their bodies" are still creatures - otherwise, spells wouldn't work

Hmm, touché.

Those examples are very relevant, because they prove "formlessness" isn't harmful by itself; victim dies not because the body "turns to formless jelly", but because "character dies".

No, they prove that formlessness is not harmful to oozes and that the Amorphous Form spell is not harmful to recipients. Once again description/effect. Character dies, and what happens when they die? They turn to formless jelly

Okay, the Cancer Mage ability mentions such as in the list of things it gives immunity to, as well as ETC. So things not on that list, which is composed entirely of visual effects of infection typically caused by the processes behind the damage, are valid. Thus, "become formless jelly" is the visual effect that is tied to the effect of "die," and is thus not part of the stuff Cancer Mage gets immunity to, while the detrimental effect, "die," is negated. Similarly, "legs fuse into snake tail" is the visible component of the cause of "halved land move speed." Basically, the Cancer Mage gets all visible effects, no matter how apparently damaging or obviously causing the penalties, but fails to have actual mechanical penalties.

No, Cancer Mage gets all cosmetic effects. In other words only those effects which cause no substantial changes.