13
\$\begingroup\$

If you are wielding a shield, is that arm/hand available to be used to hold another item or object? Or is that arm/hand completely occupied by the shield?

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hold another item or wield it? \$\endgroup\$
    – Szega
    Apr 6, 2018 at 17:16
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Let's go with hold, since if you're wielding you're already holding. But you could be holding but not wielding. \$\endgroup\$
    – NautArch
    Apr 6, 2018 at 17:17

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
22
\$\begingroup\$

RAW, Your hand is occupied.

The description of a Shield in the PHB states...

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.

Emphasis Mine from PHB p144

Thus, the PHB seems to be referring to shields that are 'held' with the hand, not simply 'strapped' to the arm.

In the medieval era, this was the norm. You'd either have a handle you gripped, a handle + a strap, or two straps (but you'd hold one of them in your fist). If you just strap a shield to your arm and don't have it mechanically affixed to your armor or something...the first time something hits it, it's just going to spin, hit you in the face or legs, and then be useless...because there's nothing holding it in place.

So, the back of your shield probably looks like this

or like this

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ I'd propose that the hand is occupied only if wielding the shield i.e., deriving its benefit, namely the +2 AC. If simply holding the shield (strapped on but useless), then one could also hold an item in that hand. Thus one could instantly drop the item and wield the shield at zero cost. Definitely not RAW, but reasonable for medium or large shields. \$\endgroup\$
    – Phlucious
    Apr 6, 2018 at 20:45
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ From personal experience, you can hold something in the gripping hand of the shield; you lose a little bit of stability, but it's not a huge deal. \$\endgroup\$
    – Sarah
    Apr 6, 2018 at 21:45
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Considering that proper use of a shield requires carefully angling the shield to deflect blows, rather than accept the direct impact, holding something in your hand is what you absolutely do not want to do. \$\endgroup\$
    – nijineko
    Apr 7, 2018 at 2:55
10
\$\begingroup\$

Not by RAW.

PHB 144:

A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand.

Based on this wording, a shield is carried in your hand, which means that you cannot carry another object in your hand.

As a DM making a ruling, I would probably allow some leeway, but the wording is pretty clear.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Mike Mearls has said here that you can maybe carry something, but not use it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Szega
    Apr 6, 2018 at 17:14
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Not official with mearls :) I'd be wary of leeway, too. Otherwise it's a workaround for not stowing a weapon(instead of the riskier drop if you are taking out another item) or even if the hand is free enough to hold something you can perform a somatic component. \$\endgroup\$
    – NautArch
    Apr 6, 2018 at 17:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ Allowing to carry but not use a small object would be reasonable. Most shield grips would let you hold say a javelin, axe or other small-diameter item without much trouble and this is/was commonly done by fighters expecting to open combat by hurling a ranged weapon and then switch quickly. It might grant an attacker advantage depending on how far the item sticks out from behind the shield though. \$\endgroup\$
    – Perkins
    Apr 6, 2018 at 20:32
-2
\$\begingroup\$

Actually if you study combat by Scottish fighters, they held a dagger in the hand with the shield strap while using a basket-hilt sword in the other hand. They performed a 3 tier attack: hit one opponent with the shield and sliced across the opponent's throat/chest with the dagger, punched the next opponent with the basket hilt part of the sword, and then stabbed or sliced a third opponent with the sword blade. So carrying or using a small rod of power in the hand securing the shield is definitely a possibility as shown by the Scots.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The D&D group tends to be strict. They often want official rulings from the game even if they don't tag it as RAW (rules-as-written). And then they like to know how a house-rule worked in your game -- did it make warriors too powerful? Is there a feat that does the same thing but better? There's a ton of stuff you can do for real that you can't do in D&D, and vice-versa. \$\endgroup\$
    – Owen Reynolds
    Jun 6, 2021 at 23:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ More specifically, we expect answers to guide people through using the relevant TRPG. What some people have done in real life is only relevant to D&D 5e insofar as D&D 5e makes it relevant — at which point it's appropriate to talk about what is available in D&D 5e and what we should be doing to make this work, not to start and end at real life discussion. Random history isn't helpful for helping people use the system until the answer actually guides people on how to use the system. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Jun 7, 2021 at 0:00
-3
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, of course.

Clearly a character can't use both items at the same time, but holding a small object in the shield hand is easy. Just ask this authentic Viking...

enter image description here

I know the rules don't explicitly state you can, but I don't think that's how 5e was intended to be read or played.

But I'm likely wrong.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ 5e is not a simulationist system so many things you could do in real life are impossible in 5e \$\endgroup\$
    – David Coffron
    Apr 7, 2018 at 12:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .