Can we get some official word on elemental races affinity?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Hey all, relatively new player, but I very much love this game system and all the options it offers for incredibly diverse and really flavorful character concepts.

I've just got one little gripe at the moment, because it seems like a grievous oversight that this hasn't been errata'd or updated since conception: Elemental affinity for the elemental races. I'm talking Ifrit/Undine/Sylph/Oread and their respective fire/water/air/earth affinity racial traits. It very specifically calls out the elemental bloodline for sorcerers and casters with the Fire domain, but we also have more closely related sorcerer bloodlines (the elemental genie bloodlines specifically, which add a touch more flavor if you're going for an exotic character) and we also have the Wind/Stone/Flame/Waves mysteries for Oracles.

I tossed the idea at my GM last night about rolling up an Ifrit Oracle of Flame with the suggestion that he allow me to apply the domain-related bonus to the character as it was related to divine casting, where the other bonus was related to arcane. He turned the idea down because, in his own words "It doesn't state that in the wording, so allowing it would alter the lore of the race, which could be unbalancing."

And so I come here to ask for a little input. I've used these forums for reference for some time up to this point, so I know that official developers browse these forums and sometimes respond to these kind of threads. Can anyone point me to an official ruling on this by a developer? Even better, if one of the developers sees this, would you mind weighing in so we have some official word? It seems really unfair that an elementally inclined race should have a bonus to certain elementally-inclined classes but not others. It doesn't even needs to be something new or different. I think we'd all be glad to just have a clarification of "Sorcerers treat charisma as 2 points higher for sorcerer spells and bloodline abilities" while "Divine casters with the Fire domain or Flame mystery use domain powers, revelations and domain/mystery spells at +1 caster level"

Would that be too broken, or are these races just due for a small update to bring them in line with the classes that came after?


The GM is correct. The rules are not going to add every possible option based on thematics alone. You can create a petition(FAQ) suggesting a rules change to add a specific thing, but if you try to add every possible thing that would reasonably be added then the answer will 99% likely be no.

edit: Also the sorcerer thing is also typically bloodline related. The oracle's power is from a divine source so they are really not that close despite both being fire based.


I was saying the GM was correct as far as the official rules. I don't think it would be unbalanced mechanically, but it would change the lore of the race.


wraithstrike wrote:
I was saying the GM was correct as far as the official rules. I don't think it would be unbalanced mechanically, but it would change the lore of the race.

Weirdly enough the elemental affinity abilities are entirely inconsistent for no reason in particular. Three of them specifically call out clerics with the X domain treat their powers and spells at +1 spellcaster. Ifrits just say spellcasters with the fire domain.


Oh, I wasn't trying to equate Sorcerer to Oracle. I was trying to equate Oracle to Fire domain casters, as both draw power from a divine source, I get where you're coming from though. I don't want to break the rules either, but it seems like Oracle gets the shaft in terms of racial boons since it was a later class addition, when a few small wordings here and there could be altered just ever so slightly to give them the same bonus as other divine casters. It's especially egregious for a class that has a built-in drawback which, to my knowledge, no other class has. It's awesome regardless, but that tiny little adjustment could open up some fun racial options.

Where would I go about creating such a petition exactly? I'll gladly do that if it may garner some good results for a class that could use a bit of love.


MadScientistWorking wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I was saying the GM was correct as far as the official rules. I don't think it would be unbalanced mechanically, but it would change the lore of the race.
Weirdly enough the elemental affinity abilities are entirely inconsistent for no reason in particular. Three of them specifically call out clerics with the X domain treat their powers and spells at +1 spellcaster. Ifrits just say spellcasters with the fire domain.

That is what I get for going off of memory and what the OP said. Maybe I misunderstood what was written.


Go to the rules section, and create a new thread. Then state in very specific terms what you would like to be changed. If people get behind it, then it will help. If people think it is ok as is then nothing is likely to happen.

Paizo Employee Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

When working with a GM in a home game, keep in mind that there's room for flexibility and negotiation so long as everyone's amenable to tweaking the rules. That might mean the GM restricts access to certain material, whether to match what exists in the setting or because a particular mechanic has been disruptive in the past. That might mean allowing in some 3rd party material because everyone agrees it would be fun. That might even mean looking at a published rule and saying, "That doesn't work for us, but with a few modifications, it would be great for our game."

Ultimately, respect the following:

  • How players and GMs use the rules is up to them so long as everyone's cool with the final form.
  • The GM has the final word on the matter yet hopefully considers a counterargument first.
  • Developing house rules is largely out of the scope of things if you're participating in an organized play program, which I gather you're not (though I encourage you to give it a try at some point).

    In the spirit of making modifications to the rules in the name of fun, applying an ifrit's fire affinity to the flames mystery or a shaman's flames spirit seems pretty reasonable so long as you're respecting the bullet points I wrote above. Please use my take as guidance, not as a mandate for forcing your GM to behave a certain way.


  • wraithstrike wrote:
    Go to the rules section, and create a new thread. Then state in very specific terms what you would like to be changed. If people get behind it, then it will help. If people think it is ok as is then nothing is likely to happen.

    Thanks! I'll pop over there and see what I can drum up.

    John Compton wrote:

    When working with a GM in a home game, keep in mind that there's room for flexibility and negotiation so long as everyone's amenable to tweaking the rules. That might mean the GM restricts access to certain material, whether to match what exists in the setting or because a particular mechanic has been disruptive in the past. That might mean allowing in some 3rd party material because everyone agrees it would be fun. That might even mean looking at a published rule and saying, "That doesn't work for us, but with a few modifications, it would be great for our game."

    Ultimately, respect the following:

  • How players and GMs use the rules is up to them so long as everyone's cool with the final form.
  • The GM has the final word on the matter yet hopefully considers a counterargument first.
  • Developing house rules is largely out of the scope of things if you're participating in an organized play program, which I gather you're not (though I encourage you to give it a try at some point).

    In the spirit of making modifications to the rules in the name of fun, applying an ifrit's fire affinity to the flames mystery or a shaman's flames spirit seems pretty reasonable so long as you're respecting the bullet points I wrote above. Please use my take as guidance, not as a mandate for forcing your GM to behave a certain way.

  • Yeah, this is a home game with friends, so there's room for flexibility, but the GM doesn't like to dip into third party/modified rules as it tends to open the floodgates for all sorts of mess and potential hurt feelings if someone has a modification approved while another doesn't. I basically pitched him exactly what I said here, that Fire domain and Flame mystery could be treated pretty analogous for the purposes of divine casting and the Fire Affinity trait, but his stance was "Not in the book, not in the game" essentially. I appreciate the vote of confidence though! I think I'm going to try petitioning in the rules forum as suggested and see if we can get an official ruling on the matter so there's a point of reference on it for the future, in case anyone else finds themselves in the same situation.


    I would suggest that you try running a game using the options you have proposed. Use them either for an NPC or for one of the others to play. If there are no balance issues you may be able to convince him to allow it. Sometimes people just need to see it in action before deciding when it's ok to house rule.

    You can also ask him to allow it with the caveat that you understand that he maintains the right to revoke it at any time and that you will keep your current character updated so that if he says you need to change, you are ready.

    Sometimes you have to negotiate and offer a way out for the other party if things don't go the way they want.


    I think this is an obvious home game house rule.

    Maybe package it with another appropriate racial trait swap.

    Ifrit alternate racial trait, "Malik bloodline- The elemental affinity racial trait applies to the Efreet sorcerer bloodline instead of the Elemental (Fire) bloodline. This alters Fire Affinity, and the character must also take the Efreeti Magic alternative racial trait."

    There is even precedence for such a substitution, since Oreads already have an alt racial trait to change their Earth Affinity bonus to the Verdant bloodline, Fertile Soil.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Just a word of warning, most GMs don't really appreciate it when a player tries to bring in a Dev to go over their head to override their ruling. While I think he could be more lenient, trying to overrule him isn't going to get him to change his mind any quicker. If anything, he'll probably stand his ground and the problem will get even worse.

    Instead, try working with him and reaching some compromise. And if that doesn't work, honestly, I'd drop the issue.


    I also should have added that even if this gets changed it could be a year or more. For now you are stuck with the GM's ruling.

    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Can we get some official word on elemental races affinity? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.