D&D 5E Two Weapon Fighting question

[TrueBagelMan]

If I used two daggers and attacked with a dagger and chose to shove the target on the ground, knocking them prone, can I use my bonus action to attack with the other dagger?

 

[Li Shenron]

Probably no by the RAW, because 2WF requires to take the Attack action AND attack with a weapon, while shoving uses the Attack action but is not a weapon attack (you can shove when unarmed).

I think it is not against the RAI to allow it, since you can already mix weapon attacks and shoves when you have Extra Attacks.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In order to qualify for the bonus attack your first attack must be with a light weapon. The Shove attack doesn't use a weapon, so...

But it's borderline, your DM might allow it.

 

[jaelis]

OTOH, if a fifth level fighter shoved you prone and then attacked with a dagger via extra attack, they could make a bonus TWF attack with a second dagger.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In order to qualify for the bonus attack your first attack must be with a light weapon. The Shove attack doesn't use a weapon, so...

But it's borderline, your DM might allow it.

Well, I’m not sure that the shove specifically doesn’t use the weapon. It just doesn’t deal damage.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not by RAW. Shoving a creature replaces an attack, but it isn’t itself an attack. It’s a contested ability check.

 

[DND_Reborn]

As a DM I would probably allow it, even though I would not think it is a RAW interpretation and certainly (as a player) would not debate it with a DM who would not allow it...

Because the intent for RAW is "no."

 

[jaelis]

Not by RAW. Shoving a creature replaces an attack, but it isn’t itself an attack. It’s a contested ability check.

The shove rules explicitly say that it is a type of attack. (Though not with a weapon of course.)

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

Unfortunately it is by RAW left out and unexplained.

If you look at the actual text, comparing grapple and shove, they each say this:
Grappling:

When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll: a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). You succeed automatically if the target is incapacitated. If you succeed, you subject the target to the grappled condition. The condition specifies the things that end it, and you can release the target whenever you like (no action required).

Shoving a Creature:

Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

The target must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Instead of making an attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). You succeed automatically if the target is incapacitated. If you succeed, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you.

I went ahead and bolded the one important part in grapple to emphasize to point out that at nowhere in the text for Shoving a creature does it specify that you have to either have a free hand OR use a hand to shove a creature.

Now, that said, as pointed out by @dnd4vr it does seem to be RAI that it cannot be done. as part of two weapon fighting. However I shall say that I would probably allow it at my table. Grappling should always require a free hand due to it's more involved nature, but I can see the argument that one could either a) trip someone with their foot while wielding a dagger (which wouldn't allow the bonus attack dagger) and b) is basically trading what could otherwise be damage with the first dagger in exchange for the second attack effectively getting advantage.

The one argument I could see against this is concern that it is basically a slightly cheesy way for a rogue to get off their sneak attack, but to be honest? I don't think it breaks the game by any stretch for a number of reasons. First, shoving is an athletics check, not an attack roll, and I'd wager most people who would benefit from this houserule don't have a high strength typically speaking or extra attack. Worst I'd wager you could see is a rogue with a decent strength who took expertise in athletics and to that one fringe case I say great. Let them do what their character is heavily invested in doing. It's frankly not hard for rogues to get sneak attack anyway (they could be a swashbuckler) and it's basically balanced around them doing it often anyway.

Second, if I am not mistaken, this ultimately boils down to the same argument people have for spells like True Strike or similar actions, where I believe the math munchkins have all conclusively determined that it is technically better to have make two attacks instead of "spending an action" to give a second attack advantage. Now I know not if that math still holds true for a second attack that doesn't have a Dex modifier for damage attached, but I'd wager that it likely is the case. They are still ultimately rolling the same number of d20s against the same AC trying to land that single sneak attack, this plan is just adding a 3rd d20 via an athletic check as a point of failure. Frankly it's not worth it unless you can be reasonably sure your athletics check will succeed.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The one argument I could see against this is concern that it is basically a slightly cheesy way for a rogue to get off their sneak attack, but to be honest? I don't think it breaks the game by any stretch for a number of reasons. First, shoving is an athletics check, not an attack roll, and I'd wager most people who would benefit from this houserule don't have a high strength typically speaking or extra attack. Worst I'd wager you could see is a rogue with a decent strength who took expertise in athletics and to that one fringe case I say great. Let them do what their character is heavily invested in doing. It's frankly not hard for rogues to get sneak attack anyway (they could be a swashbuckler) and it's basically balanced around them doing it often anyway

As I said, as a DM I would allow it, and as a player I would love it!

It makes the strong brutish rogue more viable because with good STR and Athletics, you could knock and opponent prone and then bonus action sneak attack. And frankly, is that a pretty good tactic when fighting IRL, to get your opponent to the the ground?

So, yeah, I completely agree it isn't RAI, but I think is better for the game to allow it than worse.