D&D 5E Two Weapon Fighting question


log in or register to remove this ad

Li Shenron

Legend
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.
 



doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Not by RAW. Shoving a creature replaces an attack, but it isn’t itself an attack. It’s a contested ability check.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
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...

1595098618617.png

Because the intent for RAW is "no."
 


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 High Aldwin
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.
 

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.

Ironically, this is how one should actually fight someone in platemail if you don't have a war hammer (which was designed to dent armor). Additionally for those with gauntlets there was a technique called "half-swording" where they would hold the blade and use either half the blade as a stabbing device to aim for armor cracks or use the hilt/guard as a hammer. Most "noble knights" would just knock each other down and slit the other's throat with a dagger. Of course any historian knows the real way time beat your opponent is to unscrew your pommel and end them rightly!

My favorite two scenes from early Game of Thrones (back with the show still gave a damn about quality writing) are the duel the character Bronn has with the knight of the veil where he tries him out by dodging and weaving, then goes into finish him off, and the scene where the Hound tells Arya to go ahead and stab him with Needle and it doesn't work.

Want "real" armor rules in your game? Scrap the whole ac model short of adding dex to dodging and use DR with heavy armor outright negating slashing or piercing weapons and requiring a time limit/con saves/checks before someone can't move in combat due to exhaustion. Anything else is "fantasy/game bs". I'm totally fine with the AC system, but will never defend it as "realistic".
 

Well, I’m not sure that the shove specifically doesn’t use the weapon. It just doesn’t deal damage.
That's why I described it as borderline. Shove certainly doesn't require a weapon, you can do it unnamed, an shoving someone with a dagger makes less sense than shoving them with your shoulder, but yes, strictly speaking it does not say you cannot use your weapon.
 
Last edited:

Li Shenron

Legend
That's why I described it as borderline. Shove certainly doesn't require a weapon, you can do it unnamed, an shoving someone with a dagger makes less sense than shoving them with your shoulder, but yes, strictly speaking it does not say you cannot use your weapon.

I think it's clear enough that Shove says it's a "special melee attack". It is its own thing, so you are free to narrate it the way you want including shoving with a weapon, with a spell in your hand or by spitting to someone's eye, but you can't turn it into a weapon attack, a spell attack, a ranged attack or a non-attack, it's still its own special melee attack.

Whether it's fair that 2WF has its own requirements is another matter. It is possible they did not mean to prevent a combination with Shove or Grapple, in fact, if you have Extra Attack and do at least one attack with the main weapon, you get your off-hand attack too.

I think it's best to choose, either go by RAW and say no, or go by RAI/RAF and say yes. But starting a discussion on how you can cheat the RAW by using a pommel is opening a can of worms, because next the DM is going to question what kind of weapon you really have, whether the pommel can be used as a weapon or not, or is it an improvised weapon and does it matter if you have Tavern Brawler... it is all endless theorycraft that takes farther away from playing the game.
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top