You cannot hold an Arcane Focus and a Shield in the same hand.
You absolutely can, just like you can hold a Shield and a Polearm in the same hand. You cannot however USE the Arcane Focus or the Polearm in your shield hand. That has been stated, restated, and clarified multiple times.
In fact, you can actually hold an infinite amount of items in your hand.
Good, they can tell you that the Pauli exclusion principle precludes holding an infinite number of objects in one hand.
There is always a common sense limit baked into the rules. Just because the game doesn't make explicit a hard limit doesn't mean there isn't one. The limit is whatever your DM thinks is reasonable.
It only precludes it in one dimension, and not sure what a simple bag of holding does to the principle... If you want to get technical, since you can't actually touch anything, you can hold nothing, which means you can hold everything... But, let's get back to fantasy...
Still doesn't change the fact you can hold an arcane focus in your shield hand, just can't use it there.
You cannot hold an Arcane Focus and a Shield in the same hand.
You absolutely can, just like you can hold a Shield and a Polearm in the same hand. You cannot however USE the Arcane Focus or the Polearm in your shield hand. That has been stated, restated, and clarified multiple times.
In fact, you can actually hold an infinite amount of items in your hand.
Quote the rules in the PHB or Basic Rules that you can hold an Arcane Focus and Shield in the same hand.
Quote the rules which say you can't. Oh that's right, the PHB, DMG, or any other book does not exclude it at all. It specifies limitations on WIELDING, but not holding, with the exception of Somatic Components requiring a free hand and Material Components requiring "access" but you may HOLD an arcane focus or component pouch in the same "free hand" (meaning nothing is being WIELDED in it) that is being used for Somatic Components.
I don't even mind if you say you can't wield the shield if you are holding an item in the same hand, even though that's silly too, but just for the shield, since we have plenty of actual history proving/showing that folks using shields held melee weapons in that hand while they were throwing thrown weapons.
You cannot use the same hand to WIELD two items at the same time. Using the above as the exception to the rule, it would be reasonable to state you can only WIELD an item if a hand is exclusive to that item. So you can hold FIVE javelins in your hand, but you cannot WIELD any of them in that hand, same with spears, axes, swords, shields, etc. On horseback on can WIELD a lance and a shield, but on foot one can only WIELD a lance. Weapons, Shields, and most Items must be WIELDED to be used. If a hand is not WIELDING something, it is a "Free Hand". One HOLDS an unlit torch, one WIELDS a lit torch.
If it's not in the rules it means you either can't do it or your DM can decide otherwise. There's also nothing in the rules defining hold vs. wield. If you want to rule it okay for your table that's fine. I wouldn't because to even hold a shield you have to grip straps. Your hand is not free. It takes a feat to even cast spells with S components with a shield.
It takes a feat to have a weapon and shield in your somatic hand. Anyone can cast a Somatic spell if they are just donning/wielding a shield. And you can do a very quick search to find a multiplitude of examples.
Words mean things, hold does not mean the same as wield, the rules do not need to define words which have their own definitions unless the rules are applying non-standard usage to those words.
If it's not prohibited by the rules you either can do it unless your DM decides otherwise.
If it's not prohibited by the rules you either can do it unless your DM decides otherwise.
There are lots of things that are not expressly prohibited by the rules, and to begin with that is a bad argument because nearly all the rules are written in a permissive style, telling you what you can do rather than what you cannot. So, expecting a rule to tell you that you can't do something obvious is absurd. Setting that absurdity aside for a moment, adjudicating things not in the rules is what the DM is for; but any DM that says you can have more than a handful of stuff in one hand simultaneously has made a bad ruling. And I stand by a statement that I've made on these forums before: relying on the bad rulings of a DM is bad rules advice.
The rules don't limit what you can hold in one hand because they don't have to; you can hold a handful at once. And again, the difference between wielding and holding is not spelled out in the rules, so you can say there is a difference (and there is in their definitions, I agree), but it is up to your DM to decide if there is a game mechanics difference-- since it isn't in the rulebooks (in fact, in places where according to the idiomatic meanings, you'd expect the rules to use "wield" they actually just use "hold").
This DM has decided that when his player says “My character casts X” I am not stopping to read the spell, determine if it has an S and/or an M, to determine whether or not they have to stow/draw an Arcane Focus every time. I have ruled that any and all S components can be done with a focus in hand, they only need to worry about it if the spell has one of those ‘spensive components and move on.
You know why? Because killing monsters with spells is fun, and stopping the game for 10-15 minutes to do research and bookkeeping just argue with a player that they cannot kill the monster with a spell is not fun. I’ve had fun, I remember fun, it didn’t look like that.
It takes a feat to have a weapon and shield in your somatic hand. Anyone can cast a Somatic spell if they are just donning/wielding a shield. And you can do a very quick search to find a multiplitude of examples.
Words mean things, hold does not mean the same as wield, the rules do not need to define words which have their own definitions unless the rules are applying non-standard usage to those words.
If it's not prohibited by the rules you either can do it unless your DM decides otherwise.
Part of the War Caster feat - You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands. War Caster words it as "have" something in both hands. You can decide if have means wielding but not holding.
The problem with the wording in the War Caster feat is with the sole exception of Burning Hands, you only need a free hand to fulfill the Somatic Component of a spell, and if it also requires a Material Component, that same "Free Hand" can have your arcane focus or component pouch in it or accessible to it. So having a weapon OR a shield in one hand, and nothing in the other has always been allowed. If you have an arcane focus or component pouch in one hand and anything in the other, you would need to, drop the arcane focus or component pouch, use a free interaction to stow it, or simply hold it in your other hand, foregoing the use of it for that round, as a non-action. That part of the War Caster Feat only comes in handy for those casters sword and boarding or dual wielding and wanting/needing to cast while getting full benefit from those other options.
I mean surely nobody has been walking with a drink in one hand, some food in the other, and then held both in one hand for a couple of seconds to open a door, start a car, answer a call, etc.?
I most certainly have put both my food and drink in one hand to open a door but never while someone was trying to shoot me or throw an axe at my face or burn me with a flamethrower or any other form of "combat" where in the D&D realm you have limited actions on a turn.
So you've never fired a weapon with a spare mag in your hand? Or fired a weapon with a grenade in hand? Ran with a radio while firing a weapon? Those are all "common" combat activities in modern warfare.
You cannot hold an Arcane Focus and a Shield in the same hand.
You absolutely can, just like you can hold a Shield and a Polearm in the same hand. You cannot however USE the Arcane Focus or the Polearm in your shield hand. That has been stated, restated, and clarified multiple times.
In fact, you can actually hold an infinite amount of items in your hand.
Good luck with that proclamation at the table.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
We have a Quantum Physicist at the table...
Good, they can tell you that the Pauli exclusion principle precludes holding an infinite number of objects in one hand.
There is always a common sense limit baked into the rules. Just because the game doesn't make explicit a hard limit doesn't mean there isn't one. The limit is whatever your DM thinks is reasonable.
It only precludes it in one dimension, and not sure what a simple bag of holding does to the principle... If you want to get technical, since you can't actually touch anything, you can hold nothing, which means you can hold everything... But, let's get back to fantasy...
Still doesn't change the fact you can hold an arcane focus in your shield hand, just can't use it there.
Quote the rules in the PHB or Basic Rules that you can hold an Arcane Focus and Shield in the same hand.
Quote the rules which say you can't. Oh that's right, the PHB, DMG, or any other book does not exclude it at all. It specifies limitations on WIELDING, but not holding, with the exception of Somatic Components requiring a free hand and Material Components requiring "access" but you may HOLD an arcane focus or component pouch in the same "free hand" (meaning nothing is being WIELDED in it) that is being used for Somatic Components.
I don't even mind if you say you can't wield the shield if you are holding an item in the same hand, even though that's silly too, but just for the shield, since we have plenty of actual history proving/showing that folks using shields held melee weapons in that hand while they were throwing thrown weapons.
You cannot use the same hand to WIELD two items at the same time. Using the above as the exception to the rule, it would be reasonable to state you can only WIELD an item if a hand is exclusive to that item. So you can hold FIVE javelins in your hand, but you cannot WIELD any of them in that hand, same with spears, axes, swords, shields, etc. On horseback on can WIELD a lance and a shield, but on foot one can only WIELD a lance. Weapons, Shields, and most Items must be WIELDED to be used. If a hand is not WIELDING something, it is a "Free Hand". One HOLDS an unlit torch, one WIELDS a lit torch.
If it's not in the rules it means you either can't do it or your DM can decide otherwise. There's also nothing in the rules defining hold vs. wield. If you want to rule it okay for your table that's fine. I wouldn't because to even hold a shield you have to grip straps. Your hand is not free. It takes a feat to even cast spells with S components with a shield.
It takes a feat to have a weapon and shield in your somatic hand. Anyone can cast a Somatic spell if they are just donning/wielding a shield. And you can do a very quick search to find a multiplitude of examples.
Peltast for example
Words mean things, hold does not mean the same as wield, the rules do not need to define words which have their own definitions unless the rules are applying non-standard usage to those words.
If it's not prohibited by the rules you either can do it unless your DM decides otherwise.
There are lots of things that are not expressly prohibited by the rules, and to begin with that is a bad argument because nearly all the rules are written in a permissive style, telling you what you can do rather than what you cannot. So, expecting a rule to tell you that you can't do something obvious is absurd. Setting that absurdity aside for a moment, adjudicating things not in the rules is what the DM is for; but any DM that says you can have more than a handful of stuff in one hand simultaneously has made a bad ruling. And I stand by a statement that I've made on these forums before: relying on the bad rulings of a DM is bad rules advice.
The rules don't limit what you can hold in one hand because they don't have to; you can hold a handful at once. And again, the difference between wielding and holding is not spelled out in the rules, so you can say there is a difference (and there is in their definitions, I agree), but it is up to your DM to decide if there is a game mechanics difference-- since it isn't in the rulebooks (in fact, in places where according to the idiomatic meanings, you'd expect the rules to use "wield" they actually just use "hold").
This DM has decided that when his player says “My character casts X” I am not stopping to read the spell, determine if it has an S and/or an M, to determine whether or not they have to stow/draw an Arcane Focus every time. I have ruled that any and all S components can be done with a focus in hand, they only need to worry about it if the spell has one of those ‘spensive components and move on.
You know why? Because killing monsters with spells is fun, and stopping the game for 10-15 minutes to do research and bookkeeping just argue with a player that they cannot kill the monster with a spell is not fun. I’ve had fun, I remember fun, it didn’t look like that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Part of the War Caster feat - You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands. War Caster words it as "have" something in both hands. You can decide if have means wielding but not holding.
The problem with the wording in the War Caster feat is with the sole exception of Burning Hands, you only need a free hand to fulfill the Somatic Component of a spell, and if it also requires a Material Component, that same "Free Hand" can have your arcane focus or component pouch in it or accessible to it. So having a weapon OR a shield in one hand, and nothing in the other has always been allowed. If you have an arcane focus or component pouch in one hand and anything in the other, you would need to, drop the arcane focus or component pouch, use a free interaction to stow it, or simply hold it in your other hand, foregoing the use of it for that round, as a non-action. That part of the War Caster Feat only comes in handy for those casters sword and boarding or dual wielding and wanting/needing to cast while getting full benefit from those other options.
I mean surely nobody has been walking with a drink in one hand, some food in the other, and then held both in one hand for a couple of seconds to open a door, start a car, answer a call, etc.?
I most certainly have put both my food and drink in one hand to open a door but never while someone was trying to shoot me or throw an axe at my face or burn me with a flamethrower or any other form of "combat" where in the D&D realm you have limited actions on a turn.
So you've never fired a weapon with a spare mag in your hand? Or fired a weapon with a grenade in hand? Ran with a radio while firing a weapon? Those are all "common" combat activities in modern warfare.
I've never done any of that.