Do Dvati qualify for Multiweapon Fighting?

Dvati are a species of soul-sharing twins. Each pair has 4 arms between them. A Dvati 'character' taking the feat has 4 arms. OTOH, of course, if you look at them as separate creatures, neither qualifies. ...I'm leaning towards the first interpretation, honestly, but what are your thoughts?

"Would this actually benefit them, anyway?" I hear you asking. Actually, yes. If the 'main hand' attack is, for instance, an unarmed strike with the leg, both hands a free for extra attacks courtesy of Multiweapon Fighting.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Dvatis need to be considered seperate to qualitfy for feats, there might be some exception but I have none in mind right now. I know they share one mind and some things affecting mind will affect both of them, perhaps wearing intelligence gear on one twin will affect the other as well, but you would not be able combine two same items of +4 intel to buff the intelligence (for balance reason) but that's how I would rule it, or only one gets the buff but that would be weird as well... that could be interesting to make one with the buff and one more tanky. both can't cast, but maybe wands etc. \$\endgroup\$
    – Maxpire
    Mar 26, 2020 at 23:11

1 Answer 1


Multiweapon Fighting requires 3 or more hands per creature and legs are not legal (for the prerequisite at least).

Dvati is a very special case I know it can be confusing!

Multiweapon fighting states:

A creature with three or more hands can fight with a weapon in each hand. It can make one extra attack per round with each weapon.

First of all, a Dvati is 2 creatures with one soul, so unless they grow an extra arm they can't use this feat, plus Dvati share feats so two-weapon fighting is shared between them and gives the same benefits.

Even Races that have more than 2 arms are not able to use their feet to use this feat, and Dvati don't get natural attacks with their legs. You can indeed use unarmed strike with your leg and then use another normal attack with your weapons in hands assuming you have the attacks, but you won't gain extra attacks for free with this method and you still have the normal maluses if you use two-weapon fighting.

Two-Weapon Fighting states:

You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.

I guess unarmed strike could count as a weapon?(If the DM allows it) for the purpose of the feat and would be considered as using light weapons but RAW does not seem to allow it.

So assuming your DM allows unarmed strike to be considered valid for two-weapon fighting, You attack with whatever part of your body you want and you can use your second attack with whatever part of your body you want and that's it, no extra attacks, Multiweapon fighting is not for dvatis since they both have their melee rounds to do, so they can two-weapon fighting ''twice''.

Since both get a full round action I can't respond with the 1st interpretation it makes no sense to me sorry if that does not help.


As @KRyan suggests here's some quotes from Dragon Compendium (p.16) that supports my claims:

Twins: A "single" dvati is a pair of creatures that shares a soul.

A dvati character is actually two separate dvati twins who share a soul. These two creatures move and act separately but have a number of restrictions based on their connection.

For example: A 1st-level dvati fighter consists of a pair of twins, each with the same set of fighter abilities.

You select feats, skills, and other abilities for both twins. Do not choose them separately. If one twin has Power Attack, both twins gain access to it. In essence, you build one character who occupies two bodies, regardless of the class chosen.

For Multi-weapon fighting it requires to have 1 creature (1 body) to have 3 or more arms, a Dvati is one Character, one mind but still 2 creatures (with one pair of arms each and not 4 arms alone) that acts seperately (except for spellcasting since it uses the same mind to do so).

  • \$\begingroup\$ This answer would be improved with quotes from the dvati itself, demonstrating that the two bodies don’t count as one creature for prerequisites (and thus meeting this one, as each has two arms). \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Mar 27, 2020 at 0:20
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That quote looks great, it emphasizes that they are “two creatures,” that’s honestly better than I was expecting to see. My usual response to questions about dvati is always “it’s a poor idea, poorly executed, and we have no answers for you.” Turns out, this time we can (shockingly) do better than that. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Mar 27, 2020 at 1:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ On Two-weapon Fighting — that is, the special attack not the feat — says, "If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)" (PH 160). So while this reminder does not strictly and technically allow 2-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes, it certainly alludes strongly to the possibility of doing so. \$\endgroup\$ Mar 27, 2020 at 1:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ O, I know. I was concerned about the section So assuming your DM allows unarmed strike to be considered valid for two-weapon fighting. The answer sounds to me like most DMs disapprove of unarmed two-weapon fighting and doubts that unarmed strikes are even weapons, despite unarmed strikes being mentioned in the special attack section Two-weapon Fighting and on the weapons list. (And, of course, there's the city brawler alternative class feature…) I'm just saying I think that more evidence points to allowing two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes and the answer could reflect that. \$\endgroup\$ Mar 27, 2020 at 2:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ You've convinced me; the feat is specific to "creatures", and Dvati are two creatures. I'm not sure I agree that they wouldn't benefit; MWF pretty clearly gives an extra attack with each weapon not held in the primary hand (and if the primary attack isn't made with either hand, then neither hand is the primary hand pretty much by definition). But since they can't take the feat anyway, the point is very much moot. :) \$\endgroup\$
    – Elliot
    Mar 27, 2020 at 4:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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