Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I was looking up Monk's Unarmed Strike for another answer and was wondering. If a power, such as Twin Strike requires you to be wielding two weapons, are you effectively wielding two unarmed strikes, or must you use some other weapon in either your main or your off hand?

share|improve this question

This, as far as I've gleaned from other situations, DMs, threads, and the rules, is a house rule question.

According to the letter of the rules, you are wielding one weapon, Monk's Unarmed Strike, that you can make multiple attacks with if you have the multiple attacks to use. Not two weapons. Game balance wise, I see zero issue with allowing this, and have never heard of a DM who did not allow two monk hands to be used as two weapons for feats – as long as you have both hands empty and usable as monk's unarmed strike weapons when using the feat.

share|improve this answer
well, I can see a balance issue, its basically like having 2 longswords (non versatile, which is the only difference I see) that are identically enchanted (ki focus). So the damage output is pretty good. It's an off stat build without an extra feat, but with the right half-elf it would be very interesting. – wax eagle May 7 '12 at 17:55
If I'm not mistaken, the Monk's Unarmed Strike doesn't necessarily have to use his hands--it also covers things like kicks and headbutts and generally impressive martial arts. So, can you wield two 'normal' weapons and also have access to dual-wielding Unarmed Strikes? – ioanwigmore May 8 '12 at 1:01
I kind of call suspect on that last comment. By the flavor of the text, you are correct. They can make an unarmed strike with any part of their body. However, back in 3.5, a monk needed to be wielding only monk weapons or have their body unimpeded to use their flurry of blows, gain the damage from their unarmed strikes, ect. Even though this is 4th we're talking about, it still sounds right to me. A monk's martial arts encompasses the entire body. Limiting them to only kicks would reduce their effectiveness, ergo, reducing their ability to effectively wield their unarmed strike. – CrystalBlue May 8 '12 at 13:16
While it says you can fluff an unarmed strike however you want (headbutts & kicks, for example), it also explicitly says you must have a hand free to "wield" your unarmed strike. – Oblivious Sage May 9 '12 at 3:11
What about in the case of a character I'm working on at the moment; a tempest fighter with "Master of the Fist" multiclass feat. Can he have a hammer in one hand, monk unarmed strike in the other and be classed as wielding two weapons? – izak Jun 23 '12 at 0:43

Treat Unarmed Strike as a single weapon for 1 hand. When using it for Two-Weapon Fighting, apply the normal TWF penalties. I would consider the other hand to be a light weapon for rules purposes and apply the corresponding penalties in-line with the TWF feat. -4/-4 in this case.

share|improve this answer
This is for 3.5, not 4e. Ryan, would you like to revise your answer? – Brian Ballsun-Stanton Sep 16 '12 at 7:56

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.