The Warpriest archetype Sacred Fist gains Unarmed Strike as follows:

At 1st level, a sacred fist gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. He uses his warpriest levels as monk levels for determining the amount of damage dealt with an unarmed strike.

If a character multi-classes Monk/Sacred Fist do those levels stack? For instance, does such a character at M2/SF6 have damage of (level 6, SF) 1d8 or (level 8, combined) 1d10? If something adds to their monk levels (such as a Monk's Robe) does that also stack?


2 Answers 2


No, it doesn't stack.

The ability lacks a text saying it should stack with your monk levels, or another class that grants monk levels. Like it does for your AC Bonus class ability:

This counts as the monk ability of the same name, and the sacred fist’s warpriest levels stack with monk levels for determining the benefits.

As an example of this, we got the Brute Vigilante, the both Brother of the Seal and Champion of Irori prestige classes.

Heavy Punches (Ex): The brute eschews civilized combat and prefers to wade into a fight with his fists swinging. While in his vigilante identity, the brute’s unarmed strikes deal damage as if he were a monk of his size and vigilante level. If he has levels in other classes that provide monk advancement for unarmed strike damage, his vigilante level stacks with those levels whenever he is in his vigilante identity.

Unarmed Combat (Ex): A Brother of the Seal’s class levels stack with any monk levels for the purposes of determining his flurry of blows, stunning fist, and unarmed strike class features (including determining damage dealt by his unarmed strike attacks).

Martial Artist (Ex): The class levels of a champion of Irori stack with monk levels for determining the effect of his AC bonus, flurry of blows, stunning fist, and unarmed strike class features.

  • \$\begingroup\$ This answer would be massively improved by noting that this is almost-certainly an oversight, and that of course sacred fist/monks should be allowed to stack their levels. In fact, as is I am tempted to downvote the answer. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Jun 6, 2017 at 20:33
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan that is fine to house-rule. But i dont see it was an oversight, there are dozens of classes/archetypes that gain abilities with the same name and they do not stack (spellcasting, channel energy), while we got many that explicitly call out when they stack (animal companion, sneak attack). Specially when they have another ability that says it stacks with monk levels. \$\endgroup\$
    – ShadowKras
    Jun 6, 2017 at 20:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ Despite it not being favorable the decision to explicitly state stacking in other text, especially one on the same clas, does make me lean toward the author's interpretation. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 7, 2017 at 1:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm actually not entirely sure this is correct. While, yes, the AC Bonus ability has the line about explicitly stacking that the Unarmed Strike entry doesn't, the Unarmed Strike entry DOES say, "He uses his warpriest levels as monk levels..." If the Warpriest levels count as Monk levels for the purposes of Unarmed Strike damage, why would they not stack? \$\endgroup\$
    – BRW
    Jun 14, 2017 at 13:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Wayne its the animal companion rules that state that they stack. Its a general rule. So whenever someone gains an animal companion, that rule is there unless stated otherwise. \$\endgroup\$
    – ShadowKras
    Jun 14, 2017 at 15:17

RAW, the sacred fist archetype is lacking the wording that allows it to stack, and therefore doesn’t.

However, this should be regarded as an oversight—there are plenty of archetypes that do stack in this manner, and there is no particular reason to not allow it. On top of that, there are many reasons to allow it—the monk is a really weak class, and multiclassing to monk is a very bad choice for a sacred fist. If a sacred fist, knowing this, decides to go ahead and multiclass to monk anyway, he is choosing to dramatically sacrifice his mechanical capabilities. It would be utterly inappropriate to further shaft him by sticking him with unstacking, redundant class features that he cannot use.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree with this completely. However, because of the other answer's examples and both saying RAW they do not stack I feel like the first answer should be accepted. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 7, 2017 at 1:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ToothlessRebel The definition of accepted is the answer that helped you most. While I would encourage accepting answers that are accurate, neither answer disagrees on the facts, only on the interpretation. ShadowKras sees those examples as proof that the wording is intentionally different here. I do not; I see that as proof that stacking is fine, and find it far, far more likely that this was just a mistake, an author using the wrong blurb or forgetting that stacking was not the default, than that this was intentional. (And even if it were, that doesn’t necessarily make it the best ruling). \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Jun 7, 2017 at 1:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .