Rain of Embers stance


Advice

Scarab Sages

You enter the stance of an enraged phoenix, holding your fingers as rigid as deadly talons while moving with quick, flickering gestures that flicker with dancing flames. The only Strikes you can make are fire talon Strikes. These deal 1d4 fire damage; are in the brawling group; and have the agile, finesse, fire, nonlethal, and unarmed traits.

While in Rain of Embers Stance, you gain a +1 status bonus to AC and fire resistance equal to half your level (minimum 1).

I earned the ability to use this in Society play, but I don't see why anyone would ever want to use it. It doesn't seem as useful as other stances, locks you into an attack that is weaker than your base unarmed attack and, unlike every other Stance, you never get a better ability to use with it.

The enemy that used this stance had a really cool attack that isn't really accounted for by other Monk abilities.

Did the creator not compare this to other Stances when making it? Did they come up with a later feat for the Stance and then just not publish it? Will there be a feat released that makes this equivalent to other stances?

What do other players make of this stance? Can you make a good build using it? Is there a way to make the fire resistance and fire-only attacks together useful?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kios wrote:
What do other players make of this stance? Can you make a good build using it? Is there a way to make the fire resistance and fire-only attacks together useful?

I suspect this stance is more a situational thing than a bread and butter thing. It's got low damage as you note, so you really want to have it when bludgeoning is ineffective or there's a vulnerability to fire that you can exploit. Or perhaps you've got a wizard "ally" a little too loose with fireballs to your liking. (In PFS of course they'd need your consent to include you in a fireball, but you the player can give consent even if your character is pretty irritated by the action).

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Rain of Embers punches through all kinds of physical resistance and can trigger fire-related weaknesses while also having defensive benefits akin to Crane Stance. Amongst other things this means that if you're a monk with a 16 STR fighting e.g. a centipede swarm, you're dealing an average of 5.5 damage per hit (not accounting for crits and other factors) compared to the 1.5 average damage of default or crane wing attacks or the 3.5 average damage of dragon tail attacks (and equal to the 5.5 average damage of tiger claw attacks which have to punch through less resistance). They're also agile, which means that they'll net an even bigger increase in average damage over dragon tail with each additional attack that's made during your turn.

In more favorable conditions, such as fighting a frost giant, a fire talon strike with +1 grievous handwraps and 18 STR deals an average of 19 points of damage compared to crane wing attacks dealing 11 and dragon tail attacks dealing 15. It's also a lot safer for your alchemist and wizard allies to unleash their own fire-based abilities against said frost giant so they can also trigger its weakness without worrying as much about damaging you as well. And just like before, since they're agile you net more average damage with each additional attack you make each round. They are a tool that is very potent in the right circumstances and if you're in the wrong circumstances for them, you don't actually need to use the stance.

As to how/whether it ties in to higher level abilities like those Meleeka displayed? You only passed the initial trials during Unforgiving Fire, so of course all you learned was the stance (and frankly gaining a stance that ignores all physical resistances after only a day of training is fairly impressive). To get higher level feats like the ones Meleeka used with that stance, you'd need to train more with the master of the style and have her teach you those abilities as well.

Hypothetically speaking, it's entirely possible that the developer of that quest has been watching the reporting data to see how people have been dealing with Meleeka. I would assume that a developer would probably have been doing that because if enough of the people who play and report the quest say they recruit Meleeka to the Pathfinder Society, then she'll join the organization and a future book will introduce the entire Rain of Embers style with higher level feats, which we can then make available to the entirety of PFS. If, on the other hand, groups predominantly report that Meleeka was killed, the style might be lost forever with only the base stance known to Meleeka's last living disciples.

Hypothetically.

Scarab Sages

Thank you for your speedy and detailed reply. I didn't think too much about bypassing physical resistances - I was mostly thinking about how common fire resistance probably is and how the stance prevents you from using your basic monk unarmed attacks. The fire resistance would be useful for fighting fire enemies if, y'know, you could hit them with something other than fire while having it.

I brought this up because after earning the feat and seeing the cool abilities displayed by its user, I wanted to make a character with it but honestly didn't see the point.

It doesn't feel good to unlock an ability that doesn't feel finished, so I do hope that other abilities do get unlocked at some point.

Why, though, would they need Meleeka to join? She's just a low level monk that split off from the school. How do you get the chance? I was attacked without any real room for dialogue - I would have loved to find out more about the monks there.

Melipdra was already a member of the actual monastery and is a pathfinder venture captain. If anything, I should just be able to learn more advanced moves through her or her contacts once I've learned the basic stance.


While it was the main attack of an NPC, I don't think it's meant to be that for a PC for many of the reasons you've mentioned. Yes as an option, it'll have many useful moments, though admittedly not enough for me to take the feat.

It seems the Stances that give you notable defensive bonuses also lock you into specific (lesser) Strikes. This is one of them I guess, though awkwardly when you most need the defense is also when you're most likely to meet fire resistance!
So yeah, outside Reign of Winter w/ all the ice baddies, I doubt I'd take this feat, not when I'm already so hungry for Monk feats.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kios wrote:


Why, though, would they need Meleeka to join? She's just a low level monk that split off from the school. How do you get the chance? I was attacked without any real room for dialogue - I would have loved to find out more about the monks there.

Rain of Embers is not a style from the monastery, it's a style Meleeka developed based on her family's techniques. Venture-Captain Melipdra would be more likely to teach Unblinking Flame techniques like the one found in the Student of Perfection archetype in Lost Omens World Guide.

It sounds like you might have missed your opportunity to interact with Meleeka in your playthrough?

Unforgiving Fire Spoilers:

The adventure says "As soon as she detects the PCs, Meleeka welcomes them to the Temple of Unforgiving Flame and introduces herself and her disciples. She is friendly to the PCs as long they don’t appear hostile, and Meleeka answers any questions regarding the details of her past described in the background information on page 1. However, she avoids speaking about her loss in the Challenge of Sky and Heaven. She explains that she is currently teaching her disciples the ancient techniques of the Rain of Embers kata, a martial arts form developed by her ancestors to honor the phoenix Pyralisia (also known as the Rain of Embers), who sacrificed herself during the Second Mendevian Crusade to prevent hordes of demons from escaping the Worldwound to overrun Golarion.
[...]
No matter whether the PCs attempt to Lie to Meleeka, disclose truthfully that they seek One-Who-Waits, or ignore the subject of why they have arrived altogether, Meleeka demands that the PCs prove themselves worthy of the secrets of her order. She insists that they compete against her disciples during a series of three challenges she refers to as the Trial of Embers (described in Event 1 on page 7). In truth, Meleeka suspects that the PCs have been sent to recover the artifacts she stole by the Monastery of Unblinking Flame, and hopes that the challenges of the trial and the hazards she has prepared for intruders in area A4 wear them down enough that they quickly surrender or are easily defeated when she confronts them later (see Event 2: Meleeka Attacks)."

There's a couple ways that you might have triggered the combat without interacting with Meleeka first, primarily if you were Sneaking into the temple and picked the lock to A4 or broke down the rusted door in A3 without passing through A2 first.

Scarab Sages

Michael Sayre wrote:
It sounds like you might have missed your opportunity to interact with Meleeka in your playthrough?

Yeah, it sounds like the GM ignored some of that text and/or didn't give me my only opportunity because of time constraints. That's mildly annoying.

I totally thought that Meleeka and Melindra were both ex-students of the same monastery and would therefore have the same or similar techniques, just renamed as happens so often in martial arts when a splinter school forms. I guess this was just confusion on my part. My bad.

If it is just this stance, it seems weaker than the common level one stances, which is really sad for a rare ability. If it had the grapple trait or didn't lock away your basic attack, it would at least be worth considering. As it is...

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kios wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
It sounds like you might have missed your opportunity to interact with Meleeka in your playthrough?

Yeah, it sounds like the GM ignored some of that text and/or didn't give me my only opportunity because of time constraints. That's mildly annoying.

I totally thought that Meleeka and Melindra were both ex-students of the same monastery and would therefore have the same or similar techniques, just renamed as happens so often in martial arts when a splinter school forms. I guess this was just confusion on my part. My bad.

If it is just this stance, it seems weaker than the common level one stances, which is really sad for a rare ability. If it had the grapple trait or didn't lock away your basic attack, it would at least be worth considering. As it is...

This actually went through the design team for development where these numbers were locked in as appropriate for what it grants. As I noted above, when it's good it's nearly twice as good (sometimes more) as similar abilities, but it is situational (for what it's worth, my goblin monk uses this and has definitely MVP'd multiple fights thanks to it). It's also a really solid extra 1st level feat for human monks who chose Monastic Weaponry and just want to load up as many options as they can to cover the broadest array of circumstances.

Rarity actually has nothing to do with power, so that may be coloring perception a bit as well. Rare does not mean better–it means that the option is exceedingly rare and there are probably a handful or less of circumstances or opportunities in all of Golarion where you can gain access to it. Since Meleeka is/was the last living practitioner of the style, it is definitionally rare.

Adding grab onto it would make it vastly stronger than the comparable Crane Wing feat, though it is the kind of thing that a 6th level advancement feat like Crane Flutter or Dragon Roar would typically do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
Kios wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
It sounds like you might have missed your opportunity to interact with Meleeka in your playthrough?

Yeah, it sounds like the GM ignored some of that text and/or didn't give me my only opportunity because of time constraints. That's mildly annoying.

I totally thought that Meleeka and Melindra were both ex-students of the same monastery and would therefore have the same or similar techniques, just renamed as happens so often in martial arts when a splinter school forms. I guess this was just confusion on my part. My bad.

If it is just this stance, it seems weaker than the common level one stances, which is really sad for a rare ability. If it had the grapple trait or didn't lock away your basic attack, it would at least be worth considering. As it is...

It's also a really solid extra 1st level feat for human monks who chose Monastic Weaponry and just want to load up as many options as they can to cover the broadest array of circumstances.

Why does it have any more benefit for Monastic Weapons Monks than for other Monks? Since it locks you into a specific attack you'd drop out of the stance if you used a weapon correct?

Scarab Sages

Yeah, monastic weapons shouldn't work with it. I'm guessing your goblin gets the extra fire damage?

The reason I think it is weaker than other stances, even if it were to have the same hit die, is because the additional ability you get from the stance, the fire resistance, directly conflicts with the damage type you are locked into, unlike any other stance.

The fire trait isn't positive for this stance.

Against the enemies the fire damage will benefit you the most against, you'll get no bonus from your resistance. Against the enemies your resistance helps you with, your attacks are likely resisted.

It's like in Monster Hunter. You don't hunt a fire monster with a fire weapon and you don't wear fire resistant armor against ice enemies.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vlorax wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
Kios wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
It sounds like you might have missed your opportunity to interact with Meleeka in your playthrough?

Yeah, it sounds like the GM ignored some of that text and/or didn't give me my only opportunity because of time constraints. That's mildly annoying.

I totally thought that Meleeka and Melindra were both ex-students of the same monastery and would therefore have the same or similar techniques, just renamed as happens so often in martial arts when a splinter school forms. I guess this was just confusion on my part. My bad.

If it is just this stance, it seems weaker than the common level one stances, which is really sad for a rare ability. If it had the grapple trait or didn't lock away your basic attack, it would at least be worth considering. As it is...

It's also a really solid extra 1st level feat for human monks who chose Monastic Weaponry and just want to load up as many options as they can to cover the broadest array of circumstances.

Why does it have any more benefit for Monastic Weapons Monks than for other Monks? Since it locks you into a specific attack you'd drop out of the stance if you used a weapon correct?

You'd never go into the stance to begin with, so no need to drop out of it. If you're going Monastic Weaponry over a stance, you're probably doing it for the versatility of being able to call upon a wider array of potential traits and damage types, so Rain of Embers is increasing your total versatility by adding an additional "weapon" whose function is "adds all the bonuses and modifiers of a standard unarmed attack but completely bypasses physical resistances". Whereas if you're taking a stance you're probably planning on taking the feats that build on that stance so you're likely less about versatility and more about specialization.

Kios wrote:

Yeah, monastic weapon8s shouldn't work with it. I'm guessing your goblin gets the extra fire damage?

The reason I think it is weaker than other stances, even if it were to have the same hit die, is because the additional ability you get from the stance, the fire resistance, directly conflicts with the damage type you are locked into, unlike any other stance.

The fire trait isn't positive for this stance.

Against the enemies the fire damage will benefit you the most against, you'll get no bonus from your resistance. Against the enemies your resistance helps you with, your attacks are likely resisted.

It's like in Monster Hunter. You don't hunt a fire monster with a fire weapon and you don't wear fire resistant armor against ice enemies.

Or, and hear me out, the vast array of fire spells and other primary vectors of dealing fire damage, like burning hands, fireballs, and alchemist's fire, typically deal damage in an area, which is not ideal for flammable front-liners. So when you most want this feat, you're also protected from the things your allies are most likely to want to do but which might be hazardous to you.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Unlike monster hunter, you don't swap out your entire build between fights either. Now you have something decent against ice monsters, and something decent against fire monsters.


Michael Sayre wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
Kios wrote:
Michael Sayre wrote:
It sounds like you might have missed your opportunity to interact with Meleeka in your playthrough?

Yeah, it sounds like the GM ignored some of that text and/or didn't give me my only opportunity because of time constraints. That's mildly annoying.

I totally thought that Meleeka and Melindra were both ex-students of the same monastery and would therefore have the same or similar techniques, just renamed as happens so often in martial arts when a splinter school forms. I guess this was just confusion on my part. My bad.

If it is just this stance, it seems weaker than the common level one stances, which is really sad for a rare ability. If it had the grapple trait or didn't lock away your basic attack, it would at least be worth considering. As it is...

It's also a really solid extra 1st level feat for human monks who chose Monastic Weaponry and just want to load up as many options as they can to cover the broadest array of circumstances.

Why does it have any more benefit for Monastic Weapons Monks than for other Monks? Since it locks you into a specific attack you'd drop out of the stance if you used a weapon correct?

You'd never go into the stance to begin with, so no need to drop out of it. If you're going Monastic Weaponry over a stance, you're probably doing it for the versatility of being able to call upon a wider array of potential traits and damage types, so Rain of Embers is increasing your total versatility by adding an additional "weapon" whose function is "adds all the bonuses and modifiers of a standard unarmed attack but completely bypasses physical resistances". Whereas if you're taking a stance you're probably planning on taking the feats that build on that stance so you're likely less about versatility and more about specialization.

Kios wrote:
Yeah, monastic weapon8s shouldn't work with it. I'm guessing your goblin gets the extra fire
...

ahh ok that makes sense, wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a way to get a sick flaming bo staff stance.

Scarab Sages

I understand where you're coming from and I appreciate the time you've spent helping me understand the ability.

I wish I could understand the math better, because I really like the concept.

Are there more enemies in the game that are weak to fire or that are fire based (that both use fire attacks and resist fire)?

Has anyone else used it yet? If so, what's your experience been like?


Kios wrote:

I understand where you're coming from and I appreciate the time you've spent helping me understand the ability.

I wish I could understand the math better, because I really like the concept.

Are there more enemies in the game that are weak to fire or that are fire based (that both use fire attacks and resist fire)?

Has anyone else used it yet? If so, what's your experience been like?

It's not just a good option vs things with weakness to fire. There are plenty of things that have resistance vs various physical damage types (bludgeoning/slashing/piercing) and just flat Physical resistance. Rain of Embers would not care about those resistances and bypasses them completely, it would just care about fire resistance.

The AC/fire resistance are also good, while something might not be using fire and also weak to fire, there are plenty that use fire and are strong vs physical.

You can also turn the stance on/off pretty easily, so you can always just use an action at the end of your turn to enter the stance, gain the AC/Fire resistance vs a fire elemental, and the on your turn just use a different attack to fall out of the stance, or swap to a different stance.

Sovereign Court

Kios wrote:
I was mostly thinking about how common fire resistance probably is

In Pathfinder 1, definitely. But energy resistances got a major overhaul in second edition.

* Monsters have a lot fewer resistances.
* Many more monsters now have weaknesses (such as against fire).

On the whole the design is a lot less "have to have X to even hurt it" and more "if you have X, you can hurt it really well, but regular things also work".

This means fire resistance isn't as common, and melee characters can properly fight swarms now.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Michael Sayre wrote:
Kios wrote:

[

If it is just this stance, it seems weaker than the common level one stances, which is really sad for a rare ability. If it had the grapple trait or didn't lock away your basic attack, it would at least be worth considering. As it is...

Rarity actually has nothing to do with power, so that may be coloring perception a bit as well. Rare does not mean better–it means that the option is exceedingly rare and there are probably a handful or less of circumstances or opportunities in all of Golarion where you can gain access to it. Since Meleeka is/was the last living practitioner of the style, it is definitionally rare.

Once you realize rarity has nothing to do with power, it actually sense that a rare option would have more niche applications. The common options have largely proliferated because they are more universally useful. From a meta standpoint, that is probably why they are in the core rulebook as opposed to to Rain of Embers being only for people who play a particular PFS scenario. You don't want people wading through things that niche when they are trying to figure out their bread and butter.

From an in-narrative perspective, it also makes sense that less people tried to master a fighting style that gives lower returns when you're fighting other martial artists.

Dark Archive

On complete side note, I find it frustrating whenever reporting conditions are based on "did PCs kill this character you have combat with?" whenever there isn't strong incentive for PCs to use non lethal or something like NPC being mind controlled or even knowledge in advance that they are sympathetic character :P (like certain vlaka gang member in certain starfinder scenario comes to mind)

Mostly because apparently according to internet lot of people play game in "Let's just kill everything and not talk way"(though honestly not sure if that is true, since I haven't actually seen many parties do that, it honestly seems more of meme overall to me at this point) and even if they don't, in 1e at least lot of those npcs surrendered only at 5 health less meaning it was incredibly unlikely that they would survive. In 2e at least most of surrendering morales seems to be at higher rate than "15" at max and game balance changes means its less likely to character die in one round before having chance to act.

Though it also comes with table variance since some GMs don't allow character to surrender before their turn comes up as if talking wasn't a free action :p

But yeah, reason why I find it annoying is that its always disheartening to be like "Yay, we put someone into path of redemption and did really good thing!" only to realize I never hear of that character again for unknown reasons that might be anything from "Nobody has done sequel to this scenario" to "majority of groups killed them". Like I actually feel somewhat better about scenarios were they don't care reporting condition wise whether hostile npc survived or not since I can just imagine they did "canonically" to my character get saved instead of "Oh hey canonically they died"

But yeah, I could be completely wrong about source of my frustration, its just that I have never heard of single hostile npc coming back as friendly unless there was really strong reason to ko them out instead


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Having just run this quest at Unplugged a bunch of times, I really hope the canon is for her survival, I really enjoyed that game the most (they challenged the monastery to a formal match, dojo crash style, beat her with nonlethal damage and then without prompting HEALED HER, thereby humbling her and convincing her to join)

I'd also prefer to see this not become a dead feat.

Scarab Sages

Thank you all for your insight into the design. I really don't know how much resistances have changed in this edition yet.

It seems like the stance useful for overcoming physical resistance, which based on what's been said is more common than fire resistance.

Is the fire damage still as useful after the monk gets mystic strikes at level 3?

Crane stance would then bypass physical resistance unless the opponent had resistance to magic.

Ember stance uses fire, does that get additional benefit with mystic strikes? Are enemies still more likely to resist magic bludgeoning than fire?


The stance is pretty comparable to Crane I think, in that respect it feels weird that it's a d4 and not a d6. Being able to use other attacks while in the stance would also be a huge boon, but that might be too strong.

Could definitely stand to have a followup feat either way.


I've noticed that a lot of enemies have just straight resistance to physical damage, not just nonmagical physical damage (if not all types, then one or two types).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Salamileg wrote:
I've noticed that a lot of enemies have just straight resistance to physical damage, not just nonmagical physical damage (if not all types, then one or two types).

This. There are a few things which resist magical physical damage, but they aren't especially common.


I didn't see this mentioned and didn't look at the wording.

Is it like mountain style where you have to use Said attack?

Or is it like wolf style where you get an option to the the styles unique attack but can use a regular base attack instead.

If it's the latter you have a style that Grant's fire resistances and you have the option to do d4 fire or d6 bludgeon


It’s the former.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One important thing to note is that this stance is a status bonus while crane is a circumstance bonus. Shields are a circumstance bonus.

So unlike crane style, you can stack this with raising a shield for a constant +3 AC.

Dark Archive

Run this for first time today and huh Meleeka got lucky and survived xD Did accidentally report first time without check marks but then fixed it and added that B check right away. I do wonder do wonder what would have wondered what would have happened if I completely forgot to add it, like would my game just not have counted in terms of results?

Realized something actually .-. In case of scenarios where character has three different fates to them, in two of them they survive and one of them they die, how DOES society resolve the situation? Like, if Meleeka dies 50 times, but exiles herself 40 times and gets recruited to Pathfinder society 40 times as well, does Paizo assume Meleeka died anyway even if majority of time she did survive overall? (I do think she is probably gonna die majority of time anyway unless players are really careful after reading her journal)

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

Run this for first time today and huh Meleeka got lucky and survived xD Did accidentally report first time without check marks but then fixed it and added that B check right away. I do wonder do wonder what would have wondered what would have happened if I completely forgot to add it, like would my game just not have counted in terms of results?

Realized something actually .-. In case of scenarios where character has three different fates to them, in two of them they survive and one of them they die, how DOES society resolve the situation? Like, if Meleeka dies 50 times, but exiles herself 40 times and gets recruited to Pathfinder society 40 times as well, does Paizo assume Meleeka died anyway even if majority of time she did survive overall? (I do think she is probably gonna die majority of time anyway unless players are really careful after reading her journal)

If the majority of tables say she lived (even if that's spread across multiple possible outcomes) then generally we're going to go with that NPC's survival as the outcome with maybe a spin on where we take things. For example, in a situation like the one described above, we might say Meleeka left on friendly terms and reintroduce her in a later scenario where folks get a second chance to have new interactions. Reporting data is more of a guidepost than pressing a button and locking in canon (unless it's a really clear, binary outcome), specifically because we want some opportunity to insert nuance when appropriate and make sure that the story of the org play campaign really is influenced by the player base in meaningful ways.

Dark Archive

Michael Sayre wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

Run this for first time today and huh Meleeka got lucky and survived xD Did accidentally report first time without check marks but then fixed it and added that B check right away. I do wonder do wonder what would have wondered what would have happened if I completely forgot to add it, like would my game just not have counted in terms of results?

Realized something actually .-. In case of scenarios where character has three different fates to them, in two of them they survive and one of them they die, how DOES society resolve the situation? Like, if Meleeka dies 50 times, but exiles herself 40 times and gets recruited to Pathfinder society 40 times as well, does Paizo assume Meleeka died anyway even if majority of time she did survive overall? (I do think she is probably gonna die majority of time anyway unless players are really careful after reading her journal)

If the majority of tables say she lived (even if that's spread across multiple possible outcomes) then generally we're going to go with that NPC's survival as the outcome with maybe a spin on where we take things. For example, in a situation like the one described above, we might say Meleeka left on friendly terms and reintroduce her in a later scenario where folks get a second chance to have new interactions. Reporting data is more of a guidepost than pressing a button and locking in canon (unless it's a really clear, binary outcome), specifically because we want some opportunity to insert nuance when appropriate and make sure that the story of the org play campaign really is influenced by the player base in meaningful ways.

Oh, ok, thats good to hear :O

Like even besides my own confusion shenanigans, it IS good to know bit more about scenario resolution works since its easy to have misconceptions about how that works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As someone who has not much opportunity to get into pf society (which I admit is rather unfortunate)

Is the stance (if enough people like and use it) likely to appear in a non-pfs works down the line?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:

As someone who has not much opportunity to get into pf society (which I admit is rather unfortunate)

Is the stance (if enough people like and use it) likely to appear in a non-pfs works down the line?

If your GM is willing to allow it, it is currently up on Archives of Nethys for anyone to use.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Rain of Embers stance All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.