High level monks and monk's robes? Does it increase?

[master arminas]

Say you have a 20th level monk wearing monk's robes. You get the AC bonus and unarmed damage of a monk 5 levels higher. The tables top off for both of these at 20th level with 2d10 and +5. Do they increase (AC to +6 and unarmed damage to what? 2d12?).

Any idea?

Master Arminas

[Run, Just Run]

Ask James Jacobs on Ak James Jacobs.

[Majuba]

It's not Pathfinder official, but the d20 epic rules for monks have this:

d20srd.org wrote:

AC Bonus
The monk’s bonus to Armor Class when unarmored increases by +1 every five levels higher than 20th.

Unarmed Strike
The damage for a monk’s unarmed strike does not increase after 20th level.

So AC +6, 2d10 damage.

[Tacticslion]

Take a look at the charts. The progression is very regular - very mathematical.

AC: Your AC bonus is equal to your class level divided by four, rounded down. So take the effective class level of the 20th level monk with robes (25), divide by four (25/4=6.25) and round down (6.25->6). So you'd have a +6 to your AC.

Unarmed Damage: Your unarmed damage increases by one "step" every four levels (with the exception of the 1d6 -> 1d8). Now, the argument could go either way: you could claim that because it's irregular (the 1d6->1d8 takes only three levels, whereas all the others take four) it doesn't increase and the 2d10 is a hard cap. However if a GM wishes to continue the progression, simply continue on a four-levels-basis. So 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd are 2d10 damage, and 24th and 25th is one step above that. This brings up the second question: how to increase it? If you go with the clear process as outlined, you'd get 3d6 (xd6 > xd8 > xd10 > yd6 > yd8 > yd10 > zd6 > etc), except that you'll find that's actually a step down in terms of actual damage (maximum of 18 damage instead of maximum of 20). So that's not the right answer. Alternatively, looking at the maximum damage increase, you go up by a maximum of +2 per dice per increase... almost, anyway (6 > 8 > 10 > 12 > 16 > 20) 2d12 would be good (giving you a +4 to max damage for 24), but so would 3d8 (also max of 24) and going 3d8 would allow the monk to feel better about his higher minimum damage as well, which fits for the 1d/1d/1d/2d/2d/2d pattern established so far, even if not the actual dice rolled. So I'd recommend 3d8.

In short, I'd recommend +6 total AC, and 3d8 total unarmed damage. However, since PF doesn't have solid epic rules, it's really up to your GM. You could also always look at the Epic Level Handbook published for 3.0 edition Dungeons and Dragons for a guide.

If, on the other hand the GM doesn't want the hassle, just leave it capped, and let the slot be opened for something else instead! Either way, it's win-win! :)

EDIT: NINJA'd on a monk thread! How ironic!

[Rocky Williams 530]

CRB wrote:

AC Bonus (Ex): When unarmored and unencumbered,

the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his
CMD. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC and CMD
at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every four monk
levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

Unless they release epic rules changing this, I'd say the AC does NOT increase, since it specifically says the max is at level 20. The damage however, while not showing anything higher than level 20 on the chart, doesn't specifically say it stops at level 20. So, RAW, you might be able to get that by your DM. It's up to him/her though ultimately.

[master arminas]

Tacticslion:

If you are a monk fan (as I take from your ninja'ed statement, lol) check out this alternate monk class I did: the pathfinder monk as it should have been

I would love your input if you get the chance.

Rocky:

So other than the +1 use of stunning fist, the monk's robes are wasted gold for a 20th level monk? That . . . doesn't seem right.

Master Arminas

[Tacticslion]

Oh my, yes, I am! I'd really love to look at it!
Also: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!! Something else to doooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

(I'll try to get to it, but I'm notoriously bad about that sort of thing. I'm very intrigued, however!)

EDIT: :)