I was flipping through the PHB yesterday, and I noticed something in the description for Produce Flame. It says that the flame in your hand does not harm you or your equipment. Does that mean I can attack with a weapon using that hand?
I would say no, that isn't what that phrase implies. It is saying that your leather glove doesn't burn up. After all, most game features that would probably take up a hand (such as this) don't actually explicitly say that they do or that they prevent you from holding something else.
Hmmm... I think an important distinction is that Produce Flame doesn't state that the fire appears in a free hand... just in your hand. There's nothing that says it dispels if you use your hand to do other things... so I'd say that, yes... you can conjure the flame as an action and then grab your sword and hold it in the same hand as the flame to gain the benefits of the light it produces, but it doesn't deal additional damage or anything. In order to deal damage with the cantrip you still need use an action to hurl the flame as a ranged spell attack.
But you could say the same thing about almost anything you put in your hand right? Nothing says you can't hold a sword with a hand holding a shield, right?
That's just a TRDSIC (the rules don't say I can't) argument.
There are rules, though, about holding objects. You need a free hand to hold a sword, and a shield explicitly occupies one of your hands. The Somatic component of Produce Flame also requires a free hand, so it's not like you can just light up your hand while holding both a sword and shield... but the wording of Produce Flame is such that the flame simply "appears in your hand", and the spell contains language explaining that the flame does not harm equipment. The flame is not held, therefore it can occupy the same hand that also is holding a piece of equipment.
I think there's an argument to be said that you can't use the Spell Attack option of Produce Flame if your hands are occupied holding weapons, since you can't perform the somatic component of the spell. I think a Rules Lawyer might argue that the spell attack feature of produce flame is a separate function than the casting of the spell, but I think that's getting too deep into the technicalities of spellcasting, even for me.
But even aside from that... the flame doesn't do anything but provide light in that instance. It doesn't add fire damage to your attacks, and the spell doesn't even detail what happens if, say... you were to grapple a creature while your hand was holding the flame.
Yeah? What tells you so? I don't see anything in character creation, equipment, or the combat sections of the PHB that defines wielding or attacks or shields that implies that they occupy hands or prevent anything else from being held, as you claim.
I'll concede that I can't find specific wording that clarifies that you can only hold one item in your hand at any given time. However, the description of a shield does state, "A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. " The game assumes common sense when it comes to holding objects... terms like "free hand" are used in the rules while the term "free hand" is never actually defined. But I still maintain that there is nothing in the language of Produce Flame that implies that the flame is Held or requires the use of a free hand. If anything, the detail that the flame does not harm equipment implies that it is meant to interact with armor or weaponry, as those are defined as Equipment. I think a good comparison is the spell Flame Blade, which overtly states that it requires a Free Hand to conjure the blade.
Flame blade has a material component, so obviously its statement in the text requiring a(n additional) free hand is somewhat different from a spell that only has V,S.
Nonetheless, your entire argument makes an apparent distinction between having something appear in your hand and carrying something in your hand which is beyond technical and very much in the flavor of "the rules dont' say I can't." Again, the same logic says there isn't anything that says you can't hold 6 halberds in the hand you carry your shield with.
I think the problem with this particular situation is that certain aspects of gameplay are left un-detailed in the PHB because they're covered by common sense. Which works fine with something like, "How many halberds can you carry at once", but is less applicable when it comes to, "Can you hold a weightless, formless force of energy conjured by magic with the same hand you're holding a sword". I believe that both of our interpretations are accurate, and it depends on a DM to use their own judgment to determine what they would allow in their game.
At best we can offer precedent based on the rules that already exist. There is no rule stating that all weapons must be held in the hand to be used, but we do see ruling that weapons with the two-handed property require two hands when attacking, but also include language that they can be held in a single hand otherwise. It stands to reason to extrapolate that this means a weapon without the two-handed property requires one hand to attack, and can similarly be held in a single hand when not attacking. There doesn't seem to be a universal term, but it seems to be established that an item that occupies the use of one or more hands is described as being "held", "Carried" or "Wielded". Produce Flame does not describe the fire conjured in that manner, instead simply stating that it "appears in your hand" and that it "remains there for the duration".
We also have evidence of spells that are meant to produce a tangible object that is held. Flame Blade is the simplest analogue... it contains both the term 'free hand" to describe the need for a free hand with which to wield the weapon, and although it never describes the blade as being held in in any form, it still has language for what happens if you let go of the blade. There is no language in Produce Flame that describes letting go of the produced flame, or even limitations stated for what you can do with your hand while the flame is there. Indeed, the language of the spell is such that it gives special rules for interacting with objects while the flame is conjured... we know that the flame does not harm equipment carried by the caster. The only conditions given for ending the flame is to willingly dismiss it as an action, hurl the flame with a spell attack, or wait until the spell's duration completes.
So while I agree that the language is unclear and it's reasonable to treat the Produced Flame as occupying the hand into which it is summoned, it is equally reasonable to assume that the flame does not occupy the hand in which it appears, and neither interpretation is willfully misinterpreting the rules.
Look up the feat War Castor. It explicitly states that the feat now allows you to cast a spell while holding a weapon or shield.
Thus before the feat is gained you can not cast spells with somatic components with a full hand.
The wording in the cantrip just means it will not burn up your gloves, rings or other hand adornment. Your hand still has to be able to open and fully work all fingers freely.
Oh, I'm not arguing that you can cast the spell while you're holding a sword in the same hand that you're using to cast it, I'm saying if you cast the spell, the effect where your hand is on fire doesn't prevent you from then grabbing your sword. You still need a free hand to cast the spell in the first place... But after that your hand is just on fire and you can still use it to do other stuff.
Look up the feat War Castor. It explicitly states that the feat now allows you to cast a spell while holding a weapon or shield.
Thus before the feat is gained you can not cast spells with somatic components with a full hand.
This is doubly wrong: first, War Caster allowing to you cast a spell with an S component with a "full" hand is not the reason you can't do it without the feat. It is both common and typical for a) rules to be redundant, telling you something you already knew, and b) for feats to do nothing productive even when they think they do, e.g. with Telekinetic and the range of Mage Hand. Secondly, the whole point of this thread is trying to determine whether or not Produce Flame "fills" your hand. It's entirely settled how the rules work if the answer is yes, just as it is settled if the answer is no. You posting about what happens if the answer is yes does not answer OP's question.
The wording in the cantrip just means it will not burn up your gloves, rings or other hand adornment. Your hand still has to be able to open and fully work all fingers freely.
There is absolutely no question your hand can both open and fully work all fingers freely while Produce Flame is up (the flame appears in your hand but has no mechanic for leaving it without your consent, so you don't need to maintain a grip). The only question is whether the flame object that Produce Flame produces occupies its space, and that's entirely up to your DM's interpretation of fire (and, in case it matters, conjured fire, at that). However, I don't think I've ever personally had a DM (including me) that's had fire occupy its space.
I guess since produce flame is some awful hybrid of a fire damage cantrip and light, I can see why you could effectively treat it as "light that you can only cast on your hand" for all intents and purposes. Comparing it to light and therefore makes the "you still can hold whatever in your hand" interpretation more reasonable.
I just have a notion that a spell that requires an action to remove its effect from your hand should also require that action in order to do something else with that hand, since after all the effect is "in your hand." I guess, then, grabbing a weapon hilt/haft would cover the flame and put out the light though?
I guess since produce flame is some awful hybrid of a fire damage cantrip and light, I can see why you could effectively treat it as "light that you can only cast on your hand" for all intents and purposes. Comparing it to light and therefore makes the "you still can hold whatever in your hand" interpretation more reasonable.
I just have a notion that a spell that requires an action to remove its effect from your hand should also require that action in order to do something else with that hand, since after all the effect is "in your hand." I guess, then, grabbing a weapon hilt/haft would cover the flame and put out the light though?
I mean... it's a reasonable assumption, but there's nothing in the spell that says it does that. You can cast the spell underwater and the fire will still just burn there, since it's magically conjured and not a real flame that requires fuel and oxygen. I think, without even changing how the spell works, you could still say that covering the flame blocks the light it provides, so even if the flame is technically still there as per the wording of the spell, it doesn't provide any benefits while your first is closed. Although now that I say that, it's probably not a good idea to set that precedent, since it would make it very easy for a player to use the flame while battling in darkness in such a way that they have useable light on their turn, while their opponent is fighting in darkness. Although that's also kind of a clever workaround, so maybe it'd be good to reward that...
Either way, the spell definitely should have had clearer wording from the start. I think it's one of those things that has never been clarified because, no matter how you interpret the spell to work, the effect is so relatively minor and only a factor in extreme edge cases that even if the DM's interpretation of the spell is "wrong", it still won't have a major impact on gameplay.
Yeah? What tells you so? I don't see anything in character creation, equipment, or the combat sections of the PHB that defines wielding or attacks or shields that implies that they occupy hands or prevent anything else from being held, as you claim.
Shields. A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time.
Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.
Shields explicitly state that they are carried in one hand while the two-handed property says that you have to use two hands to make an attack with it which implies weapons without the two-handed property still require a hand to use.
Common sense also would tend to indicate that you have to use at least one hand to carry/wield a shield or to wield a weapon.
On the other hand, the produce flame cantrip says "A flickering flame appears in your hand. The flame remains there for the duration and harms neither you nor your equipment. " It does not indicate that the flame needs to be carried or held just that it is present in your hand.
Could you use the hand for other things with the flame present? For example, could you climb a rope with produce flame in your hand? I would think so - it doesn't damage you or your equipment. The only damage it can do is if it is thrown - you can't even touch someone to do damage with it.
--------
Bottom line is that it is a DMs call. RAW the spell says nothing about requiring the flame to be held or carried while other rules like those for shields explicitly do state they need a hand to carry them.
-------
P.S. That said, it is a perfectly good ruling for a DM to say the flame fills your hand and you can't do anything else when the flame is present. Honestly, the effect on actual play is probably insignificant :) .. however, the spell itself doesn't state such a requirement.
P.P.S. Other spells that create something in your hand that occupies your hand also include text regarding dropping the item.
Flame blade: "You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand. The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration. If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action."
Shadow Blade: "If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn." In order to drop something, you have to have been holding it.
Spellcasting rules: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." This implies the obvious that a free hand is one that is not holding something else.
Could a druid with a shield with produce flame in their hand use the hand with produce flame as a "free hand" for casting another spell? Since the flame doesn't harm the druid and doesn't need to be "held" then I'd say yes that the hand with produce flame could also be used to manipulate a spellcasting focus or access the character's component pouch.
Until it is thrown, produce flame just creates a source of light in a character's hand - but I could see other DMs making different decisions.
----
One more thought. Produce Flame is 10 minutes and does not require concentration. This means that the only way the druid has to end the spell is to throw it but to do that you need to throw the flame at a creature within 30'. This spell becomes a significant detriment and can't be used for lighting if the druid is prevented from casting other spells for 10 minutes unless they throw the flame and hurt or kill another creature before the 10 minutes is up.
"A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists. " which for produce flame is 10 minutes unless you throw it at someone.
Based on this issue and the fact that the spell description explicitly states that the flame does not harm you or your equipment - I think the intent was that the hand with produce flame can still be used to hold something else like a component pouch, spellcasting focus or a sword even while the cantrip is running.
I guess since produce flame is some awful hybrid of a fire damage cantrip and light, I can see why you could effectively treat it as "light that you can only cast on your hand" for all intents and purposes. Comparing it to light and therefore makes the "you still can hold whatever in your hand" interpretation more reasonable.
I just have a notion that a spell that requires an action to remove its effect from your hand should also require that action in order to do something else with that hand, since after all the effect is "in your hand." I guess, then, grabbing a weapon hilt/haft would cover the flame and put out the light though?
I mean... it's a reasonable assumption, but there's nothing in the spell that says it does that. You can cast the spell underwater and the fire will still just burn there, since it's magically conjured and not a real flame that requires fuel and oxygen. I think, without even changing how the spell works, you could still say that covering the flame blocks the light it provides, so even if the flame is technically still there as per the wording of the spell, it doesn't provide any benefits while your first is closed. Although now that I say that, it's probably not a good idea to set that precedent, since it would make it very easy for a player to use the flame while battling in darkness in such a way that they have useable light on their turn, while their opponent is fighting in darkness. Although that's also kind of a clever workaround, so maybe it'd be good to reward that...
Either way, the spell definitely should have had clearer wording from the start. I think it's one of those things that has never been clarified because, no matter how you interpret the spell to work, the effect is so relatively minor and only a factor in extreme edge cases that even if the DM's interpretation of the spell is "wrong", it still won't have a major impact on gameplay.
But you could already get the same effect you're afraid of here by covering and uncovering, say, a coin with either light or darkness cast on it in a nearly identical fashion.
That's a good point. I think with those other examples I had always considered covering/uncovering the enchanted object to be an item interaction... so a character could cover or uncover the object on their turn, but not both. I think that still kind of works even with an object as small as a coin... it's at least a little bit difficult to hold out a glowing coin in a way that it provides light without dropping it while opening and closing your fist around it... especially if you're also running around, swinging a sword, or casting spells at the same time. Meanwhile, the flame from Produce Flame remains in your hand regardless of what position your hand is in, so it's a lot harder to justify making covering/uncovering the flame an item interaction. Although Produce Flame also produces a much smaller amount of light, since it's really more of an attack cantrip with a nifty light side effect rather than a major source of light.
That's sort of the whole problem with the whole "single free action, except when we don't feel like it" economy in the first place. Dropping an item (uncovering it) is always available per tweets from designers, and so all you have to do is pick it back up using your free action to cover it again. I hate it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was flipping through the PHB yesterday, and I noticed something in the description for Produce Flame. It says that the flame in your hand does not harm you or your equipment. Does that mean I can attack with a weapon using that hand?
i am a human being.
I would say no, that isn't what that phrase implies. It is saying that your leather glove doesn't burn up. After all, most game features that would probably take up a hand (such as this) don't actually explicitly say that they do or that they prevent you from holding something else.
Ok, thanks.
i am a human being.
Hmmm... I think an important distinction is that Produce Flame doesn't state that the fire appears in a free hand... just in your hand. There's nothing that says it dispels if you use your hand to do other things... so I'd say that, yes... you can conjure the flame as an action and then grab your sword and hold it in the same hand as the flame to gain the benefits of the light it produces, but it doesn't deal additional damage or anything. In order to deal damage with the cantrip you still need use an action to hurl the flame as a ranged spell attack.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
But you could say the same thing about almost anything you put in your hand right? Nothing says you can't hold a sword with a hand holding a shield, right?
That's just a TRDSIC (the rules don't say I can't) argument.
There are rules, though, about holding objects. You need a free hand to hold a sword, and a shield explicitly occupies one of your hands. The Somatic component of Produce Flame also requires a free hand, so it's not like you can just light up your hand while holding both a sword and shield... but the wording of Produce Flame is such that the flame simply "appears in your hand", and the spell contains language explaining that the flame does not harm equipment. The flame is not held, therefore it can occupy the same hand that also is holding a piece of equipment.
I think there's an argument to be said that you can't use the Spell Attack option of Produce Flame if your hands are occupied holding weapons, since you can't perform the somatic component of the spell. I think a Rules Lawyer might argue that the spell attack feature of produce flame is a separate function than the casting of the spell, but I think that's getting too deep into the technicalities of spellcasting, even for me.
But even aside from that... the flame doesn't do anything but provide light in that instance. It doesn't add fire damage to your attacks, and the spell doesn't even detail what happens if, say... you were to grapple a creature while your hand was holding the flame.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Yeah? What tells you so? I don't see anything in character creation, equipment, or the combat sections of the PHB that defines wielding or attacks or shields that implies that they occupy hands or prevent anything else from being held, as you claim.
I'll concede that I can't find specific wording that clarifies that you can only hold one item in your hand at any given time. However, the description of a shield does state, "A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. " The game assumes common sense when it comes to holding objects... terms like "free hand" are used in the rules while the term "free hand" is never actually defined. But I still maintain that there is nothing in the language of Produce Flame that implies that the flame is Held or requires the use of a free hand. If anything, the detail that the flame does not harm equipment implies that it is meant to interact with armor or weaponry, as those are defined as Equipment. I think a good comparison is the spell Flame Blade, which overtly states that it requires a Free Hand to conjure the blade.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Flame blade has a material component, so obviously its statement in the text requiring a(n additional) free hand is somewhat different from a spell that only has V,S.
Nonetheless, your entire argument makes an apparent distinction between having something appear in your hand and carrying something in your hand which is beyond technical and very much in the flavor of "the rules dont' say I can't." Again, the same logic says there isn't anything that says you can't hold 6 halberds in the hand you carry your shield with.
I think the problem with this particular situation is that certain aspects of gameplay are left un-detailed in the PHB because they're covered by common sense. Which works fine with something like, "How many halberds can you carry at once", but is less applicable when it comes to, "Can you hold a weightless, formless force of energy conjured by magic with the same hand you're holding a sword". I believe that both of our interpretations are accurate, and it depends on a DM to use their own judgment to determine what they would allow in their game.
At best we can offer precedent based on the rules that already exist. There is no rule stating that all weapons must be held in the hand to be used, but we do see ruling that weapons with the two-handed property require two hands when attacking, but also include language that they can be held in a single hand otherwise. It stands to reason to extrapolate that this means a weapon without the two-handed property requires one hand to attack, and can similarly be held in a single hand when not attacking. There doesn't seem to be a universal term, but it seems to be established that an item that occupies the use of one or more hands is described as being "held", "Carried" or "Wielded". Produce Flame does not describe the fire conjured in that manner, instead simply stating that it "appears in your hand" and that it "remains there for the duration".
We also have evidence of spells that are meant to produce a tangible object that is held. Flame Blade is the simplest analogue... it contains both the term 'free hand" to describe the need for a free hand with which to wield the weapon, and although it never describes the blade as being held in in any form, it still has language for what happens if you let go of the blade. There is no language in Produce Flame that describes letting go of the produced flame, or even limitations stated for what you can do with your hand while the flame is there. Indeed, the language of the spell is such that it gives special rules for interacting with objects while the flame is conjured... we know that the flame does not harm equipment carried by the caster. The only conditions given for ending the flame is to willingly dismiss it as an action, hurl the flame with a spell attack, or wait until the spell's duration completes.
So while I agree that the language is unclear and it's reasonable to treat the Produced Flame as occupying the hand into which it is summoned, it is equally reasonable to assume that the flame does not occupy the hand in which it appears, and neither interpretation is willfully misinterpreting the rules.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Look up the feat War Castor. It explicitly states that the feat now allows you to cast a spell while holding a weapon or shield.
Thus before the feat is gained you can not cast spells with somatic components with a full hand.
The wording in the cantrip just means it will not burn up your gloves, rings or other hand adornment. Your hand still has to be able to open and fully work all fingers freely.
Oh, I'm not arguing that you can cast the spell while you're holding a sword in the same hand that you're using to cast it, I'm saying if you cast the spell, the effect where your hand is on fire doesn't prevent you from then grabbing your sword. You still need a free hand to cast the spell in the first place... But after that your hand is just on fire and you can still use it to do other stuff.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
This is doubly wrong: first, War Caster allowing to you cast a spell with an S component with a "full" hand is not the reason you can't do it without the feat. It is both common and typical for a) rules to be redundant, telling you something you already knew, and b) for feats to do nothing productive even when they think they do, e.g. with Telekinetic and the range of Mage Hand. Secondly, the whole point of this thread is trying to determine whether or not Produce Flame "fills" your hand. It's entirely settled how the rules work if the answer is yes, just as it is settled if the answer is no. You posting about what happens if the answer is yes does not answer OP's question.
There is absolutely no question your hand can both open and fully work all fingers freely while Produce Flame is up (the flame appears in your hand but has no mechanic for leaving it without your consent, so you don't need to maintain a grip). The only question is whether the flame object that Produce Flame produces occupies its space, and that's entirely up to your DM's interpretation of fire (and, in case it matters, conjured fire, at that). However, I don't think I've ever personally had a DM (including me) that's had fire occupy its space.
I guess since produce flame is some awful hybrid of a fire damage cantrip and light, I can see why you could effectively treat it as "light that you can only cast on your hand" for all intents and purposes. Comparing it to light and therefore makes the "you still can hold whatever in your hand" interpretation more reasonable.
I just have a notion that a spell that requires an action to remove its effect from your hand should also require that action in order to do something else with that hand, since after all the effect is "in your hand." I guess, then, grabbing a weapon hilt/haft would cover the flame and put out the light though?
I mean... it's a reasonable assumption, but there's nothing in the spell that says it does that. You can cast the spell underwater and the fire will still just burn there, since it's magically conjured and not a real flame that requires fuel and oxygen. I think, without even changing how the spell works, you could still say that covering the flame blocks the light it provides, so even if the flame is technically still there as per the wording of the spell, it doesn't provide any benefits while your first is closed. Although now that I say that, it's probably not a good idea to set that precedent, since it would make it very easy for a player to use the flame while battling in darkness in such a way that they have useable light on their turn, while their opponent is fighting in darkness. Although that's also kind of a clever workaround, so maybe it'd be good to reward that...
Either way, the spell definitely should have had clearer wording from the start. I think it's one of those things that has never been clarified because, no matter how you interpret the spell to work, the effect is so relatively minor and only a factor in extreme edge cases that even if the DM's interpretation of the spell is "wrong", it still won't have a major impact on gameplay.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Shields. A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time.
Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.
Shields explicitly state that they are carried in one hand while the two-handed property says that you have to use two hands to make an attack with it which implies weapons without the two-handed property still require a hand to use.
Common sense also would tend to indicate that you have to use at least one hand to carry/wield a shield or to wield a weapon.
On the other hand, the produce flame cantrip says "A flickering flame appears in your hand. The flame remains there for the duration and harms neither you nor your equipment. " It does not indicate that the flame needs to be carried or held just that it is present in your hand.
Could you use the hand for other things with the flame present? For example, could you climb a rope with produce flame in your hand? I would think so - it doesn't damage you or your equipment. The only damage it can do is if it is thrown - you can't even touch someone to do damage with it.
--------
Bottom line is that it is a DMs call. RAW the spell says nothing about requiring the flame to be held or carried while other rules like those for shields explicitly do state they need a hand to carry them.
-------
P.S. That said, it is a perfectly good ruling for a DM to say the flame fills your hand and you can't do anything else when the flame is present. Honestly, the effect on actual play is probably insignificant :) .. however, the spell itself doesn't state such a requirement.
P.P.S. Other spells that create something in your hand that occupies your hand also include text regarding dropping the item.
Flame blade: "You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand. The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration. If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action."
Shadow Blade: "If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn." In order to drop something, you have to have been holding it.
Spellcasting rules: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components." This implies the obvious that a free hand is one that is not holding something else.
Could a druid with a shield with produce flame in their hand use the hand with produce flame as a "free hand" for casting another spell? Since the flame doesn't harm the druid and doesn't need to be "held" then I'd say yes that the hand with produce flame could also be used to manipulate a spellcasting focus or access the character's component pouch.
Until it is thrown, produce flame just creates a source of light in a character's hand - but I could see other DMs making different decisions.
----
One more thought. Produce Flame is 10 minutes and does not require concentration. This means that the only way the druid has to end the spell is to throw it but to do that you need to throw the flame at a creature within 30'. This spell becomes a significant detriment and can't be used for lighting if the druid is prevented from casting other spells for 10 minutes unless they throw the flame and hurt or kill another creature before the 10 minutes is up.
"A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists. " which for produce flame is 10 minutes unless you throw it at someone.
Based on this issue and the fact that the spell description explicitly states that the flame does not harm you or your equipment - I think the intent was that the hand with produce flame can still be used to hold something else like a component pouch, spellcasting focus or a sword even while the cantrip is running.
But you could already get the same effect you're afraid of here by covering and uncovering, say, a coin with either light or darkness cast on it in a nearly identical fashion.
That's a good point. I think with those other examples I had always considered covering/uncovering the enchanted object to be an item interaction... so a character could cover or uncover the object on their turn, but not both. I think that still kind of works even with an object as small as a coin... it's at least a little bit difficult to hold out a glowing coin in a way that it provides light without dropping it while opening and closing your fist around it... especially if you're also running around, swinging a sword, or casting spells at the same time. Meanwhile, the flame from Produce Flame remains in your hand regardless of what position your hand is in, so it's a lot harder to justify making covering/uncovering the flame an item interaction. Although Produce Flame also produces a much smaller amount of light, since it's really more of an attack cantrip with a nifty light side effect rather than a major source of light.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I would say grabbing the sword covers the light effect.
Nothing in the spell says it envelope your hand. It only says its in your hand. So its palm sized and just produces a small amount of light.
That's sort of the whole problem with the whole "single free action, except when we don't feel like it" economy in the first place. Dropping an item (uncovering it) is always available per tweets from designers, and so all you have to do is pick it back up using your free action to cover it again. I hate it.