Can multiple creatures hold one item simultaneously?

[Mastikator]

The artificer spell storing class feature states that they can choose a simple or martial weapon or an artificer spellcasting focus and store a spell that uses an action. Which can then be cast by anyone holding the object.

My question is simple, say you put it on a spear. Can multiple creatures hold that spear at the same time and cast the spell on the same round?

[animorte]

Right from the start I was just about ready to throw down some grappling rules for who gets possession of the stick. Mallakhamba, or Indian stick-wrestling, was always fun growing up.

Anyway, I would say that they can both cast the spell if they both expend their separate actions to do so. It still has a limit of uses equal to your Intelligence modifier though. So as long as there’s enough uses left, I don’t see why not!

[Amnestic]

There's no reason the party couldn't just toss the item between them on their turns to create essentially the same effect so...sure, I guess.

Though I'd keep a "I reserve a right to revoke this if it ever becomes too much of a pain" in my back pocket. Looking at the artificer spell list I don't see that happening with this specific case, but if it was expanded to things I haven't thought of, it might become one.

[stoutstien]

There's no reason the party couldn't just toss the item between them on their turns to create essentially the same effect so...sure, I guess.

Though I'd keep a "I reserve a right to revoke this if it ever becomes too much of a pain" in my back pocket. Looking at the artificer spell list I don't see that happening with this specific case, but if it was expanded to things I haven't thought of, it might become one.

It's mostly a non issue. every once in a while you get a jack in the box opening up casting 10 shatters in a turn but that's not matching what full casters are dropping at that point.

[Amnestic]

It's mostly a non issue. every once in a while you get a jack in the box opening up casting 10 shatters in a turn but that's not matching what full casters are dropping at that point.

Yeah that seemed the "scariest" thing. They'd need enough creatures to do it (not many parties are that large), and put up against what they might otherwise be doing with their 11th+ level turn, everyone getting to cast a 2nd level shatter seems fine.

Tiny Servants (also on the artificer spell list) come to mind as a potential concern I guess, so it'd be the "additional creatures" (familiars, etc.) that people might have rather than player characters that strike me as a potential issue.

Player characters trading their action for a 'free' shatter at that level isn't an issue, but familiars doing so might be.

[stoutstien]

Yeah that seemed the "scariest" thing. They'd need enough creatures to do it (not many parties are that large), and put up against what they might otherwise be doing with their 11th+ level turn, everyone getting to cast a 2nd level shatter seems fine.

Tiny Servants (also on the artificer spell list) come to mind as a potential concern I guess, so it'd be the "additional creatures" (familiars, etc.) that people might have rather than player characters that strike me as a potential issue.

Player characters trading their action for a 'free' shatter at that level isn't an issue, but familiars doing so might be.

Eh. Even then it's pretty low key once you look at what others are doing at this level. Artificer weaponizing a free actions for some extra damage/CC/healing is good but this is lv 11+ we are talking about. The Cleric is summoning an angel pumping damage out as high enough to make fighters feel pointless, druids are summoning stampede levels of fodder, the wizard...well is a wizard, and so on.
Even compared to the other half casters this is mild one you figure in the planning factor needed. IDS is always and some 11lv concave features are solid like concentration free summons or free attack reroll.

[Mastikator]

There's no reason the party couldn't just toss the item between them on their turns to create essentially the same effect so...sure, I guess.

Though I'd keep a "I reserve a right to revoke this if it ever becomes too much of a pain" in my back pocket. Looking at the artificer spell list I don't see that happening with this specific case, but if it was expanded to things I haven't thought of, it might become one.

Tossing the item may be inadvisable if the item is a weapon and the spell is invisibility, lol. Each casting renews invisibility for the item since the caster is technically holding it.

If the party does it simultaneously a simple initiative order could solve the dilemma

[Yakk]

Sometimes it might involve checks to do this in the middle of a stressful situation. Expecting (say) 10 animated objects to do this reliably might not work.

But sure.

[Greywander]

IIRC, there are actually no rules for holding items. It doesn't even say it requires a free hand anywhere. I think it's one of those things where they expect you to use common sense.

This topic came up in another thread a while back. Did you know that magic shields only require you to hold them to gain the magical +X to AC? Donning a shield is an action, so you can hold a shield without wielding it. Anyway, the question was raised about what happens when you grab onto a magic shield that an enemy is using. Do you get the magical AC bonus while holding on to it? Again, there aren't any rules for this.

What made sense to me was that only one creature can hold an item at a time. You can grab their shield, but they still count as holding it and you don't until they let go of it. Though perhaps it makes more sense if no one counts as holding the item if it's being "contested", i.e. at least two creatures are holding the item and are not cooperating. This could make for some interesting tactics where you grab an enemy's weapon or shield to prevent them from using it. I'd probably run it similar to a grapple. If the creatures holding the item are cooperating, then it might make sense to allow them all to count as holding the item.

[Oramac]

Looking at the artificer spell list I don't see that happening with this specific case, but if it was expanded to things I haven't thought of, it might become one.

You mean like using Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists instead of class spell lists? ;) Oh yea, I can see that becoming an issue!

[Willie the Duck]

Tiny Servants (also on the artificer spell list) come to mind as a potential concern I guess, so it'd be the "additional creatures" (familiars, etc.) that people might have rather than player characters that strike me as a potential issue.

For situations like this, my group uses what we call 'the peasant railgun barrel-plug.' Roughly speaking, it is 'if the fact that the game runs on each character taking their turn sequentially--but also supposedly taking place simultaneously in a 6-second round--leads to nonsensical results, defer to the interpretation which causes the least in-game confusion. As others have said, this isn't really an overpowered effect to massively duplicate, but if you run into one (say a homebrew item which allows anyone who held it to cast an attack cantrip or something), I would say that 500 minions can't all pass the item amongst each other in a single round.

[Amnestic]

You mean like using Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists instead of class spell lists? ;) Oh yea, I can see that becoming an issue!

Hah! In this case, I meant things like magic item activation that expends charges without requiring attunement. Most high powered wands require attunement iirc, but there might be some items I'm not aware of where this is possible, and that could be a problem.

[stoutstien]

Hah! In this case, I meant things like magic item activation that expends charges without requiring attunement. Most high powered wands require attunement iirc, but there might be some items I'm not aware of where this is possible, and that could be a problem.

Wand of MM springs to mind.