Ifrit and Efreeti Magic wording confusion


Rules Questions

Grand Lodge

15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
ARG wrote:
Efreeti Magic: Some ifrits inherit an efreeti ancestor's ability to magically change a creature's size. They can cast either enlarge person or reduce person (the ifrit chooses when using this ability) once per day as a spell-like ability (caster level equals the ifrit's level). The ifrit can use this ability to affect other ifrits as though they were humanoid creatures. This racial trait replaces the spell-like ability racial trait.

We know that normally an Enlarge Person spell will not work on a Native Outsider such as a Ifrit. However ifrits can gain Efreeti Magic which allows them to use this SLA on their race as if they were humanoid.

However, the rules text says 'other ifrits'. There is an implied meaning here that 'other ifrits' does not include the self. However, there is no explicit sentence stating the SLA will not work on the self.

The word "Other" can mean "additional and further" and also "different or distinct from the one mentioned or implied." So I am having a bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word in this context.

Can an ifrit cast an Efreeti Magic Enlarge or Reduce Person SLA on themselves?
Some developer clarification would be great.


If the intent is to allow the Ifrit with Efreeti Magic to be able to affect them self with enlarge or reduce, then the worth "other" is completely unneeded.

If the words used to write the alternate racial trait are all included for a reason, then that reason is for an Ifrit to remain unable to affect himself with enlarge or reduce person.

Grand Lodge

Two other thoughts:

-If the intent was that the ifrit could cast the SLA on themselves, why insert the word 'other' at all. If it had been cut, the meaning would be that the SLA works on all ifrits, self included.

-If the intent was that the ifrit could not cast the SLA on themselves, why is there no sentence that explicitly states this, given that ifrits can be affected by the SLA. It's a tad confusing.


I think it was poor wording that meant to allow the spell to be cast on them despite that the race is nto humanoid.


KestlerGunner wrote:
-If the intent was that the ifrit could not cast the SLA on themselves, why is there no sentence that explicitly states this, given that ifrits can be affected by the SLA. It's a tad confusing.

There is no need of such a sentence - it would be redundant.

The reason there is no need for such a sentence is that the spells duplicated by the spell-like ability have a general rule; they cannot target outsiders.

Only the specific contradictions to that general rule need to be specified; that one Ifrit may use the spell-like ability on an other Ifrit.

That's just how writing rules to the game works - even if you would find it more clear for every rule to be expressed redundantly wherever it is referenced.

Shadow Lodge

Enlarge person wrote:

Target one humanoid creature

This spell causes instant growth of a humanoid creature, doubling its height and multiplying its weight by 8. This increase changes the creature's size category to the next larger one. The target gains a +2 size bonus to Strength, a –2 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum of 1), and a –1 penalty on attack rolls and AC due to its increased size.

I believe the wording is ensure clarity (ha!) in that Enlarge/Reduce Person as their SLA works on ifrits (outsiders).

ARG wrote:
The ifrit can use this ability to affect other ifrits as though they were humanoid creatures.

There's nothing else in the quote from ARG that suggests "others only".

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Avatar-1, Ifrits aren't humanoids.


Avatar-1 wrote:
ARG wrote:
The ifrit can use this ability to affect other ifrits as though they were humanoid creatures].
There's nothing else in the quote from ARG that suggests "others only".

Bold for emphasis of the word you clearly missed that doesn't just suggest "others only", but flat-out states it.

Grand Lodge

Other can mean 'additional and further' or 'different and distinct', hence the confusion. It does not state 'others only'.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

KG, here's my understanding of the situation.

Ifrits can get the Efreet-like ability to grant humanoids the ability to enlarge or shrink. Under normal circumstances, an Ifrit's spell-like racial Enlarge Person would work on humanoids, and that's it. The sentence in question allows it to also work on other Ifrits. (But not Undines, Aasimars, etc.) So, if Bob the Ifrit is adventuring with Bill the Dwarf and Barbara the Ifrit, he can cast reduce person on Bill and, because of that sentence, on Barbara. But not himself. He's not ordinarily a valid target of the spell, and the special condition doesn't allow him to cast it on himself.

At least, that's how it runs at my table.

(If we wanted to have a "what did the developers intend" argument, I'd say that, if the intent was for Bob to be able to enlarge himself, they wouldn't have used the word "other". The sentence would make sense without it, and would unambiguously include Bob.)


KestlerGunner wrote:
Other can mean 'additional and further' or 'different and distinct', hence the confusion. It does not state 'others only'.

Context is important in the usage of a word.

Other being used to refer to "additional and further" items requires a context that puts an item prior - such as saying "one other use," after defining at least one use before the word "other."

The context in which "other" is used when saying "other Ifrit" clarifies the more common definition of "different and distinct."

Examples of further Ifrit-related contextual usage of the word other:

"I went into the bar to meet Sasha (who is an Ifrit), and one other Ifrit." shows the additional and further usage of the word other.

"Do you know any other Ifrit?" when asked of a particular Ifrit shows the different and distinct usage of the word other.

Grand Lodge

That's a totally valid interpretation of the rules and I can totally get behind that reading. The big restriction comes from one word, usually this is done with more simple one definition words and phrases like 'only', 'limited to' or 'This is restricted to'. "Other" hasn't spelt it out clearly enough so there's been multiple readings happening. It'd be great if a developer could clarify.

Grand Lodge

thenobledrake wrote:


Other being used to refer to "additional and further" items requires a context that puts an item prior - such as saying "one other use," after defining at least one use before the word "other."

The context in which "other" is used when saying "other Ifrit" clarifies the more common definition of "different and distinct."

Examples of further Ifrit-related contextual usage of the word other:

"I went into the bar to meet Sasha (who is an Ifrit), and one other Ifrit." shows the additional and further usage of the word other.

"Do you know any other Ifrit?" when asked of a particular Ifrit shows the different and distinct usage of the word other.

Good analysis. This would suggest to me that the SLA doesn't work on the caster as the norm is that it doesn't work.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Based strictly on the wording, I can understand the interpretation.

Based on the fact that the strict interpretation would make for an asinine SLA, though, I'm inclined to think that they probably meant "self and others."

So let's all click the FAQ button and then we can stop arguing about it, yes?

Grand Lodge

Cheers Patrick. I agree that handing out SLAs that ambiguous clauses about their uses isn't so great. Everyone hit the FAQ button! It's squishy!


I would reach to make a ruling to say that they are not limited to other ifrits only, but they can also ping other ifrits with it as well. It is ambigeous enough for me to make that ruling so I shall, But I agree with anyone ruling otherwise.

Shadow Lodge

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear; I didn't miss the word "other" or that ifrits aren't humanoids.

To make the whole thing clearer, the bit that's missing is that enlarge person normally only targets humanoids (ifrits are outsiders) and the SLA says it can target other ifrits, and doesn't include an exception that the ifrit targeting themselves can also be a target.

RAI tells me that you're supposed to be able to target yourself, but it's just a little too strange that it mentions only "other ifrits" without mentioning something like:

What it should be wrote:
They can cast either enlarge person or reduce person (the ifrit chooses when using this ability) once per day as a spell-like ability (caster level equals the ifrit's level). An ifrit is treated as a humanoid for the purposes of this effect.


Isn't one of the efreet's abilities is the enlarge person? thus, (and I understand that an ifrit is not an efreet) would it not be construed as castable on the self? why be able to use it in one format, then psuedo-deny it to their descendant?

Grand Lodge

Efreeti Genie Ability wrote:
Change Size (Sp) Twice per day, an efreeti can magically change a creature's size. This works just like an enlarge person or reduce person spell (the efreeti chooses when using the ability), except that the ability can work on the efreeti. A DC 13 Fortitude save negates the effect. The save DC is Charisma-based. This is the equivalent of a 2nd-level spell.

Yes, the Efreeti Genie can change their own size. To follow flavour, Ifrits would use the 'usable on a creature' (including self) ability the same way, right?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Well, there's also the Efreet wish-granting ability, that allows the character to grant other people's wishes, and the Ifrit Wishcrafter archetype. The ability to grant other characters something, like a size change, but not access it oneself is well established in the race.

If we were looking to follow flavor.


Avatar-1 wrote:

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear; I didn't miss the word "other" or that ifrits aren't humanoids.

To make the whole thing clearer, the bit that's missing is that enlarge person normally only targets humanoids (ifrits are outsiders) and the SLA says it can target other ifrits, and doesn't include an exception that the ifrit targeting themselves can also be a target.

RAI tells me that you're supposed to be able to target yourself, but it's just a little too strange that it mentions only "other ifrits" without mentioning something like:

What it should be wrote:
They can cast either enlarge person or reduce person (the ifrit chooses when using this ability) once per day as a spell-like ability (caster level equals the ifrit's level). An ifrit is treated as a humanoid for the purposes of this effect.

I think what they were driving at is that Ifrit count as humanoid for the purpose of the Efreeti Magic ability, but not for all enlarge person spells. They can use it on themselves, other ifrit, or humanoids.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, I'm Ben Bruck, I wrote the Ifrit section for the ARG.

My original intent was for the ability to work on the caster, as well as other ifrits (and of course humanoids).
However, the wording was changed a bit from my original turnover, in such a way that I'd say that, as written, the caster would NOT be able to target himself.

For comparison

My turnover:
"The ifrit can affect ifrits with this ability as though they were humanoid creatures."

The final product:
"The ifrit can use this ability to affect other ifrits as though they were humanoid creatures."

So I don't know if that clears things up or muddies the waters further :)

I would tend to assume that Paizo made the change intentionally, as they're usually quite good at editing for clarity without changing the way the rules work.

Shadow Lodge

Wow, thanks Benchak. That does sound very intentional.

The only way I can see it being an oversight is if they reworded "ifrit can affect ifrits" thinking you might have intended other ifrits only and didn't consider that wording might negate target themselves.

At this stage though, that might be a stretch.


Is this one of those "you are your own ally" deals? Are you an "other ifrit"?

I imagine you are.

Grand Lodge

Thanks so much for posting Benchak. Super professional.
The evidence is really gathering in the side of the ifrit not being able to target himself/herself with the ability.
Personally, I think I've seen enough - I won't be allowing ifrits to enlarge self.
Of course, that's my own personal current reading. If a Paizo staff member has the time to deal with the FAQ request that'd be wonderful.


Bizbag wrote:

Is this one of those "you are your own ally" deals? Are you an "other ifrit"?

I imagine you are.

Being your own ally came about because the wording of certain spells could be made shorter by phrases like "allies within the area" replacing "you and your allies within the area."

There is no wording that can be made shorter by the use of the word "other" that doesn't still clearly mean "not you."

Liberty's Edge

I think it absolutely stupid if it only affects other Ifrits.


Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:
I think it absolutely stupid if it only affects other Ifrits.

I agree with you on that - I just have a strict policy of never assuming I know the intent of a rule when it comes to answering questions about what the rule actually does according to the language actually showing up in print.

As seen earlier in the thread, the writer of the rule actually meant it to work on any Ifrit - but the text was edited to function differently for a reason we will never know without the editor's input.

It is precisely situations like this when a GM must remember not to be hesitant to disagree with the RAW in favor of RAMSTM (rules as make sense to me).

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

i think the intent is that you can use it on yourself , and other ifrits, as though they were valid targets of the spell-like ability.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Ifrit and Efreeti Magic wording confusion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.