Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Bestiary Question: Efreeti Quickened Scorching Ray?


Paizo Products

Grand Lodge

I have a question about the Efreeti stat block. Here is how I am reading it:

Efreeti (Bestiary, p. 140) have the Quicken Spell-Like Ability feat (Bestiary, p. 315) and their stat block states that they have quickened scorching ray. However, the base Efreeti is only CL11 and the feat requires CL12 in order to quicken 2nd level spells: (CL12/2)-4 = 2.

So, the only Efreeti that should theoretically be capable of using a quickened scorching ray per the feat text would be a Malik, since they are CL15 (or some other custom CL12 version). Technically, I guess Maliks could also use quickened fireball in that case, since (CL15/2)-4 = 3.

This combination would seem to make Maliks particularly dangerous, since they could unleash a quickened fireball followed by a regular one, dealing 20d6 worth of AoE damage in their opening turn, plus delivering 1 more quickened fireball for the 3x/day fireball limit followed by scorching ray, then a quickened scorching ray (for the 3x/day feat limit) followed by a normal scorching ray on turn 3. The total max damage across 3 turns would be: 66d6 (barring saves & misses, of course, average @ 198). Or, even if only using at-will scorching ray, assuming all attacks were to hit each round (3 swift, 3 standard). So, a CL15 Malik (not a regular CL11 Efreeti) would get a max of 24d6 each round if all 6 attacks hit. 9th and lower PCs are at significant risk...and I am not implying that any GM should ever do this to a party or individual PC, despite being possible, or at least not without fair warning about very dangerous fire encounters.

Am I misreading/misinterpreting? Why does a base, CL11 Efreeti get a quickened scorching ray if it doesn't meet the feat prerequisite for the required caster level? Is it intentional or just a Bestiary stat block error?

Thanks in advance for your replies.


The 3.5 D&D efreeti had a a caster level of 12, so did qualify for the feat. I assume the Pathfinder version having a caster level of 11is a typo, and it should be 12 as well.

Grand Lodge

Yes - I definitely agree. It seems like they should be CL12 (and, in that case, also remain quite dangerous if played to the limit of their abilities).

Grand Lodge

If nobody has any other thoughts, then it seems like there needs to be an errata to the Bestiary to make Efreeti CL12 (or remove quickened scorching ray from the base stat block).

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Paizo Products / Bestiary Question: Efreeti Quickened Scorching Ray? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Paizo Products

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.