Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MostlyHarmless42" data-source="post: 8041119" data-attributes="member: 6845520">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:Shoving a Creature: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 [USER=6987520]@dnd4vr[/USER] 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.</blockquote>

Verification