| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By strict RAW you are absolutely correct---mostly because when Monk's Robe was written archetypes hadn't been invented yet, so it failed to use language that would account for them.
If you're not in PFS or otherwise in a campaign bound to strict RAW, though, I would never try to get this past a GM, because it's blatantly not RAI. What they clearly meant in Monk's Robe was "if you have the monk AC bonus class feature" and "if you have the monk unarmed damage class feature," both of which other brawlers have but you lack.
So, yes you're right, but it's probably best to pretend you aren't. Hope that helps. :-)
"If the wearer has levels in monk, her AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher."
The second 'monk' is referring to the first, HER AC bonus. If you have levels in Monk, you can treat your levels of monk as 5 higher for AC and unarmed damage. It isn't some random unknown monk's levels and AC bonus, it is YOUR monk levels and AC bonus. If your monk levels don't give you an AC bonus at either your current level or 5 levels higher, then your AC bonus remains 0.
Dave has it. An exemplar wearing a monk's robe counts as an exemplar 5 levels higher for the purpose of determining their unarmed strike damage and AC bonus--meaning that the monk's robe does nothing for an exemplar.
Edit: This is silly, and in practice I'd treat it no worse than any other character wearing such a robe--the character would get the AC bonus and unarmed strike damage of a 5th-level monk. But that's just for my table.
I'm with Dave Justus - you count as a Monk for the Robe, so only the first part applies. Which means you only increase existing abilities, and don't gain new ones. "AC" refers to the "AC Bonus" class feature, while "unarmed damage" refers to the respective part of the "Unarmed Strike" class feature. As you don't have either, your level for those is irrelevant.
I would certainly allow a monk that didn't get the bonus to take the non-monk bonus. When it was written, there were no monks like that.
If one were to sneak in one level in monk though, everyone would agree that that you regain the unarmed combat features and full progression, and Monk's Robe would treat your effective monk level for purposes of it all as your monk level plus your brawler level +5?
not really. I seem to recall this coming up before and IIRC the general consensus was that you end up with 2 overlapping progressions. So, you could either use your monk progression or your brawler progression both of which are enhanced by the robes independently and that was without even considering archetypes that altered or modified said progressions.
Actually, nothing in the Brawler description says that the levels stack with Monk levels for the AC Bonus or Unarmed Strike class features. Thus, you'd be at Monk level +5.
Huh? How do you read this then?
Martial Training (Ex)
At 1st level, a brawler counts her total brawler levels as both fighter levels and monk levels for the purpose of qualifying for feats. She also counts as both a fighter and a monk for feats and magic items that have different effects based on whether the character has levels in those classes (such as Stunning Fist and a monk’s robe).
The brawler levels should count as monk levels for purposes of qualifying for feats and effects of magical items. So a level 5 character, with 1 level in monk and 4 in brawler should count as a level 5 monk for purposes of magical items.
When combined with:
If the wearer has levels in monk, her AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher.
You get an effective monk level of 10 for both AC and unarmed damage for purposes of those progression charts.
By taking one level in monk you get around the issue of lacking the unarmed combat part of the class that you loose by taking the exemplar archtype
I read it that if a feat or magic item references fighter or monk then I can treat my brawler levels as if they were fighter or monk levels. It states that I add up my brawler levels, but at no point does it indicate that if I actually have levels in fighter or monk that I get to add them together with brawler. When you can add class levels together it will be clearly stated like the following.
The hunter’s effective druid level is equal to her hunter level. If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the companion’s statistics and abilities.
At no point does it state that brawler stacks with monk or fighter for the purpose of determining anything.
The brawler levels should count as monk levels for purposes of qualifying for feats and effects of magical items.
you do get to count your brawler levels as monk levels for purposes of qualifying and the effects of magic items. This is not the same as them stacking.
The monk's robe specifically points to the monk class's AC and unarmed chart to determine your damage, not to any other class's.
I'm not sure why this is relevant, the item existed before the brawler class did, so of course it doesn't mention it.
And most importantly, the brawler class ability SPECIFICALLY calls out the monk robe as an item that your brawler class level counts for. That item was SPECIFICALLY envisioned to fully apply to a brawler by the creators.
Yes, the developers wanted to allow brawlers to make use of items that were originally designed for monks. If the creators intended for brawler to stack with monk, then it would clearly state that. It does not and so they do not stack.
I mean, what wording should of been used? if the desired result is wanting class X to use items/feats that call out class Y and that's it?
It seems pretty straight forward to say X = Y for purposes of these feats and items. There's no need to state anything else when it's well understood that just because a character has the same ability twice they don't automatically stack. This is why channel energy from multiple classes don't stack.
Pathfinder is an exclusive system rather than an inclusive one. For that to work the way the OP wants, it should have clearly been explicited. If the line is missing, it doesn't work bar an afterthought designer's oversight.
Now a player can absolutely force the issue in PFS sessions. Just that it won't be well-received at all, and word spreads fast. On the contrary, home games would allow for some gentleman's agreement to come into place.
Okay, fair enough on the stacking, though you wouldn't stack your monk levels if you were monk 1, brawler 4, you would have basically 4 different sets of levels for purposes of items and feats.
1: 1 level in monk, from your actual level in monk
2: 4 levels in fighter, from your 4 levels in brawler
3: 4 levels in monk, from your 4 levels in brawler
4: 4 levels in brawler, from your 4 levels in brawler.The monk's robe would either give you 1+5 levels in unarmed damage and AC progression and
AND
The monk's robe would apply 4+5 levels in unarmed damage and AC progressionsince you don't apply multiple sources of AC or the like at the same time, the greater of the two would apply. Meaning you have 9 effective monk levels for your unarmed damage progression and AC.
You do, based on your brawler unarmed damage and AC. Since the archetype has removed said progression then you get a null result. This means that the greater of the two is the 1+5 from your actual monk level.
It doesn't matter whether you have the class feature of Unarmed Strike from the brawler or the monk. All that matters is that you have the class feature and then it looks to see the highest level in monk that you have.
My stance on this sub-issue is the same as on the whole issue (nothing having changed my mind since my first post): RAW yes, RAI very much no.
Basically, if this was tried at my table, there'd better be someone holding a gun to my head demanding "Strict RAW! Adjudicate strictly by RAW!"
I don't know why you keep rolling on back to the brawler's progression table when nothing about the item references it.
um... why would I use anything but the brawler unarmed damage table to determine what my unarmed damage is for my brawler? and again how can it reference brawler if brawler didn't exist when it was written?
If it worked the way you're saying then you wouldn't need the level in monk at all. You would reference the normal monk progression table regardless if you have the class feature or how it's been modified.
took an archetype that reduces your unarmed damage by 1 step or causes it to stop progressing after a certain level? no worries monk's robes changes it. Took one that increased your unarmed damage? too bad it goes back to being normal.
you're claiming that the word monk in the beginning of the sentence means something different then the word monk found later in the same sentence.
You're saying it reads something akin to
"If the wearer has levels in wizard, her AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher."
Instead of
"If the wearer has levels in wizard, her AC and unarmed damage is treated as a wizard of five levels higher."
not sure why the 1st monk is subject to substitution and the 2nd one isn't.
It doesn't matter whether you have the class feature of Unarmed Strike from the brawler or the monk. All that matters is that you have the class feature and then it looks to see the highest level in monk that you have.
Oh yes it does matter, because the calculation is done by that class feature and not the item. You may count as a 4th level Monk for Monk's Robe, but that item doesn't do any calculation of its own. You don't have a class feature that does any calculation based on Brawler levels, because you archetyped that one away.
To repeat, the only place where your levels are actually relevant, is for the class feature itself. Your Brawler elvels don't count as anythign for Monk class features.