Protecting your eldritch cannon

[Greywander]

The Artillerist's eldritch cannon is pretty useful, especially the protector cannon which can greatly extend the longevity of your party. The cannon can also be attacked and destroyed, although better it than you. Any hit the cannon takes is a hit that someone in your party isn't taking, so it's still doing it's job protecting the party. But then there's AoE. If everyone is clustered around the protector cannon to get that sweet temp HP, you're basically in Fireball formation. Fortunately, the temp HP will take the edge off the damage, if it doesn't block it entirely, but it could also wear down the cannon and destroy it. And it's not like it wastes an enemy's action to simply include the cannon within the AoE, like it would if they were targeting it with an attack.

So my question is, I suppose first of all, is it worth worrying about protecting your cannon? Or do you just summon a new one if it dies? It has HP equal to 5x your level, so it actually has modest robustness (especially with the temp HP every round). If it is worth worrying about, what can you do to protect it? The first thing I thought of is that if you make the cannon tiny, then it can be held, and IIRC the general rule is that equipment that is held or carried tends to be "protected" from being damaged, unless something specifically says otherwise. But the Artillerist has their hands full with a shield and their arcane firearm. This makes me wonder if it makes sense to play a loxodon so you can carry the cannon in your trunk. Or, if a simic hybrid would be able to carry a cannon in one of their grappling appendages, especially later on when they can have two cannons out at the same time. I imagine you could also put the cannon in a backpack, or perhaps hook it onto your belt, to keep your hands free.

[Melphizard]

The eldritch cannon has a climb speed and can by tiny so I typically imagine it skittering around me and using my medium-sized body as cover of some sorts to defend it from any fireballs and such. Additionally, your protector turret could always just hop inside a pouch or bag that isn't a magical wormhole and/or extraplanar space and still give out all that good temp hp while being shielded. It states in the protector text:

The cannon emits a burst of positive energy that grants itself and each creature of your choice within 10 feet of it a number of temporary hit points equal to 1d8 + your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1).

This never specifies line of sight nor blockage by cover nor anything about corners. As long as you can "choose," in whatever sense, creatures within 10 ft. of the protector turret, you're good to put it in a giant metal box that's water-proof, inner-layered with bubble wrap and polyurethane foam, with built in cooling and heating systems depending on the fireball and/or cone of cold conditions the turret may be experiencing outside.

Thus, your turret should probably be safe unless some enemies decides to destroy your turret's protection casing; however, they'd be quite the jerk to start attacking some random tinkerer's backpack as opposed to the tinkerer carrying around said backpack.

Keep on spamming out temp hp!

[Greywander]

It doesn't actually have any kind of speed, climbing or otherwise. Rather, what it says is that when you use a BA to activate it, you can direct it to walk or climb up to 15 feet to an unoccupied space. So sadly I think that means having it climb on another creature is out. Technically, the cannon isn't a creature, it's an object, so it doesn't quite follow the same rules as creatures. (It occurs to me that the cannon wouldn't get the temp HP, because it isn't a creature. This likewise means things like a paladin's Aura of Protection wouldn't extend to the cannon.)

Still, it was a good idea. I'm not sure how strict a DM would be about enforcing some of these rules, though. You might be able to get away with something like a shoulder-mounted cannon, where it just appears on your shoulder and gets treated like a piece of equipment, but that technically isn't RAW.

I think the question still stands though if it's even worth protecting the cannon. AoE is all you'd really need to worry about, as it won't cost the enemy anything to include the cannon inside the AoE, whereas it's actually a good thing if enemies are targeting the cannon with attacks or single-target spells. Still, since it seems like the cannon would be omitted from a lot of party buffs (temp HP, paladin auras, etc.), it might not be a bad idea to protect it anyway.

[stoutstien]

The cannon itself is mostly immune to AoE spells and effects. The biggest issue is just someone picking it up and carrying it off.

[Khrysaes]

You can just hold the cannon. Doing so means that you take the aoe effects and attacks instead of it.

Also, there are rules, technically optional, for mounting/climbing a larger creature in the DMG. A tiny cannon can presumably do that to a friendly creature with relative ease.

[Psyren]

I have the protector cannon and the flamethrower cannon be Tiny with legs, and climb on a melee character's shoulder while I stay in the back. This is especially great at high levels when you get Fortified Position and can give all of your melee continuous half-cover that moves with them. You can also use the new Vortex Warp spell from Strixhaven to reposition your party members for maximum benefit. As the cannon is an object rather than a creature it should go along for the ride, but check with your DM. (If your DM rules that the cannon is treated like a creature instead, that will give you free reign to teleport it directly.)

[king_steve]

I've played an Artillerist from levels 4-12 (I started as an alchemist and well... after talking it over with the DM I swapped to the Artillerist) and so far I think I've only lost 1 Eldritch Cannon during a fight. My usual strategy is to use them as a small creature/item with legs so we can spread out a bit and have it walk on its own. The party only has 3 PCs as well and most battles (like 90%) I use it in protector mode. It starts with 15 HP and having an AC of 18 means its not easy to hit (e.g. at lvl 5 that's 25 HP w/ 18 AC, that's not bad) and considering it takes a first level spell slot to bring it back I've never really worried about keeping it up. If an enemy is focusing on the cannon then its not attaching other party members and well, that's a win IMO. I have yet to make use of the level 9 feature to have it self-destruct, but it might be fun to try that if things time out correctly (e.g. its near an enemy or two and the cannon is at low HP and its not close to allies since the self blast hits all creates in a 20 ft radius).

I think the ability for it to be tiny is cool, but I do think it has problems with how its held. I've played it that when its tiny its held in 1 hand, so you'd need 1 other hand for say your Arcane Firearm or shield (probably the firearm though). I can see an argument that you could have it stand on your shoulder as its a tiny object and it could have legs, but I also can see a DM reasonably saying they wouldn't allow that.

[Greywander]

The cannon itself is mostly immune to AoE spells and effects.
...Because it's an object, not a creature. Good catch, I didn't notice this until just now. I was going to go on a spiel about how the cannon essentially has +0 to saving throws, but you're right, a lot of AoE effects specify that they affect creatures and don't say anything about objects. Shatter would be an issue, but that's a pretty specific spell, and it's a low level spell so the threat isn't as high as it would be for, say, a dragon's breath weapon. Actually, only non-magical objects take damage from Shatter, and our cannon is a magical object.

TBH this is very strange, and I could see houseruling this out. If, say, an enemy was surrounded by magical totems that were buffing them, I'd certainly feel a bit cheated if I dropped an AoE on them and was told that the totems aren't affected because they're objects. But I suspect things might be this way because objects aren't really designed to make saving throws, i.e. they lack stats and proficiencies. Even the eldritch cannon has to include a clause about if it makes a saving throw, then treat it as if it had stats.


Also, there are rules, technically optional, for mounting/climbing a larger creature in the DMG. A tiny cannon can presumably do that to a friendly creature with relative ease.

I have the protector cannon and the flamethrower cannon be Tiny with legs, and climb on a melee character's shoulder while I stay in the back.
A DM might allow these, but technically it isn't RAW:

It doesn't actually have any kind of speed, climbing or otherwise. Rather, what it says is that when you use a BA to activate it, you can direct it to walk or climb up to 15 feet to an unoccupied space. So sadly I think that means having it climb on another creature is out.


I've played an Artillerist from levels 4-12 (I started as an alchemist and well... after talking it over with the DM I swapped to the Artillerist) and so far I think I've only lost 1 Eldritch Cannon during a fight. [...] If an enemy is focusing on the cannon then its not attaching other party members and well, that's a win IMO.
Good to know. Mostly I was worried about AoE because, as you say, if an enemy is focusing on the cannon and not your party then that's a win. But since most AoEs don't affect objects, it seems that fear was unfounded.

[JNAProductions]

Eh... As a DM, I'd have AoEs hit the cannon. Excepting the obvious things like Synaptic Static (since that's psychic) I'm not gonna exclude it from a Fireball or a Cone Of Cold. RAW, no, but makes for a more sensible and playable game in my opinion.

While I wouldn't argue with a DM who wanted to be RAW on this, I suspect many DMs wouldn't even realize that the RAW is what it is. In other words, ask your DM.

[stoutstien]

Spells limits are a feature not a bug. Not like most objects are tough. just have to use attack based features that can target them. Firebolt, alchemist fire, and so on.

[JNAProductions]

Spells limits are a feature not a bug. Not like most objects are tough. just have to use attack based features that can target them. Firebolt, alchemist fire, and so on.

Those spells were written before the Eldritch Cannon existed.

As someone said earlier-if an enemy is surrounded by a bunch of totems that are granting them significant bonuses, and I drop a Fireball on the cluster, Imma be mad if the DM says "Nah, the totems are 100% fine."

Plus, it means something like an Eldritch Blast can't even target the Cannon-and that doesn't feel right either.

[stoutstien]

Those spells were written before the Eldritch Cannon existed.

As someone said earlier-if an enemy is surrounded by a bunch of totems that are granting them significant bonuses, and I drop a Fireball on the cluster, Imma be mad if the DM says "Nah, the totems are 100% fine."

Plus, it means something like an Eldritch Blast can't even target the Cannon-and that doesn't feel right either.
Well if they aren't magical totems then they should burn or use shatter which is built to blow objects apart. If they are magical then it's a barrier for casters to target then with an AOE which isn't a bad thing and you could always just move the totems or the NPC away from each other. It's like a red dragon having fire immunity. As long as the players are *mostly* aware of that fact and not a got ya angle it's fine.

The fact that there are spells and options in the PHB that can target objects means they knew (maybe) what the implications were.

[Psyren]

A DM might allow these, but technically it isn't RAW:

Given that you can create it in your hand I'm not sure that a creature being in a space means it counts as "occupied" for a Tiny cannon, but duly noted. I can just use my free object interaction to hand it to someone anyway, or have them pick it up before the fight starts.

As far as it taking AoE damage, I do think it should if it's not being attended/held. That's a tactical consideration for the artificer player - if you're in a fight where AoE is a likely issue, it means that the handheld cannon is probably the ideal form to use.

[Greywander]

Given that you can create it in your hand
You actually can't, you have to create it in an unoccupied space. You can hold it, but you'll have to pick it up off the ground after it's been created.

TBH, it feels like it just wasn't very well thought out. They probably should have just made it a creature to begin with, which would have prevented a lot of these issues in the first place.

[Kane0]

The thing that worries me most about those cannons is a random enemy just picking it up and tossing it. Given that large, strong creatures arent particularly uncommon they could yeet my sentry an impressive distance and probably damage it upon impact. But thats a DM thing.

But other than that, I dont really worry about it taking AoEs. They are disposable and generate THP after all.

[Gurgeh]

It occurs to me that the cannon wouldn't get the temp HP, because it isn't a creature.
The protector cannon explicitly benefits from its own burst (the temp HP are granted to "itself and each creature of your choice within 10 feet of it"), so there's no worries on that front. It does stop a protector cannon from shielding a second cannon once Fortified Position comes into play, though.

[Bobthewizard]

If you make it tiny, couldn't you put it in a backpack and have someone wear it. Then it's pretty indestructible since most things can't target objects that are worn or carried.