Questions on the Eldritch cannon from artificer

[Odessa333]

So I started to post this in simple RAW, but as I wrote it out, I don't think it's as 'simple' as I initially thought.


In short, what senses, if any, does an Eldritch cannon from an artificer have? I'm trying to figure out things like can it shoot invisible foes? If I cast darkness on it, can it 'see' to still shoot a foe inside the darkness with it? Or getting complicated, if it's in the darkness, I'm not, and I order it to shoot someone not in the darkness that I can see.... what then? I'm trying to make sure I understand if it's using my senses, it's own senses (and if so, what senses it has), and how that works with spells that change things up, like darkness, invisibility, etc.

[Psyren]

It uses your senses. You are actually making the attack, choosing the target etc, but the attack originates from the cannon. So if you can see the target, the cannon can hit it without issue*, and if you can't then your attack takes the appropriate penalties.


*Cover still matters if there are obstacles between your cannon and the target however

[stoutstien]

So I started to post this in simple RAW, but as I wrote it out, I don't think it's as 'simple' as I initially thought.


In short, what senses, if any, does an Eldritch cannon from an artificer have? I'm trying to figure out things like can it shoot invisible foes? If I cast darkness on it, can it 'see' to still shoot a foe inside the darkness with it? Or getting complicated, if it's in the darkness, I'm not, and I order it to shoot someone not in the darkness that I can see.... what then? I'm trying to make sure I understand if it's using my senses, it's own senses (and if so, what senses it has), and how that works with spells that change things up, like darkness, invisibility, etc.

Oh boy. This is actually a pretty weird cross point for a bunch of rules.

First off the cannon is an object so it doesn't have any sense or actions to speak of. The exact wording of the ballistia option supports this by specifically calling out the artificer is the source of the attack roll even if the source is the cannon. So it's like a familiar delivering a touch spell. **Note this means the attack could have disadvantage if an enemy is in 5ft of the artificer regardless of the position of the cannon. Same goes for any advantage you may get in said attack.**

There are more odd stuff like but that's the basics. Invisibility has a bunch of odd interactions here.

[Rukelnikov]

So I started to post this in simple RAW, but as I wrote it out, I don't think it's as 'simple' as I initially thought.


In short, what senses, if any, does an Eldritch cannon from an artificer have?

It doesn't have any senses.


I'm trying to figure out things like can it shoot invisible foes?

It definitely can, but I assume you are asking without disadvantage/shooting the wrong square. I guess its up for debate, my reading, with Force Ballista you are making the attack roll, so you are the one that determines if you attack with disadvantage/attack the wrong square. You are making an attack roll from a different square (assuming you are not wielding the cannon in your hand).


If I cast darkness on it, can it 'see' to still shoot a foe inside the darkness with it?

It can't see anything, whether there's darkness or not. If you shoot a foe you can't see you have disadv and possibly even attack the wrong square.


Or getting complicated, if it's in the darkness, I'm not, and I order it to shoot someone not in the darkness that I can see.... what then?

That case I guess is the trickier one. On the one hand, you can see the enemy, so normally you would attack without penalties, however, you can't see where your remote cannon is. I'd allow it to shoot without any penalties, but I'd also perfectly understand someone giving penalties to the attack.


I'm trying to make sure I understand if it's using my senses, it's own senses (and if so, what senses it has), and how that works with spells that change things up, like darkness, invisibility, etc.

Well, thing is, the cannon is not a creature, its a magical object, and it doesn't say it has any sense, or any kind of awareness for that matter. So, at least how I read it, you are using your senses to order the cannon to fire. However I do think its flavorful for it to be able to be placed in a corridor, and just attack "anything that moves", but the game doesn't give that option, since in order for the cannon to fire, you need to spend a bonus action, so its not an automated object, it requires the artificer micromanaging it, and thus I'd say it has no autonomy, it has no awareness, it has no senses.

[Odessa333]

It's weird, right? Consider this example:

I'm an artificer, and I make the arcane cannon. I had it to the party wizard.

Wizard casts invisibility on herself.

I cast invisibility on myself.

I then attack with my cannon, held by the wizard... what happens?



As I understand, I turn visible. But does the cannon? Does the wizard? If my canon is made visible but not the wizard, could it attack, then move into their invisible robe/backpack to be hidden?

There seems to be a lot of odd ways the arcane cannon could work with spells. I don't know the answer, just theory crafting really.

[Mastikator]

The wizard is holding an item that caused another creature to take damage, I'd say that's enough to break it. And since the artificer's action is what caused damage, their invisibility should break too. IMO I'd rule that invisibility breaks for both.

[stoutstien]

RaW the wizard would remain invisible which isn't really that big of deal. The wizard can move about without OAs and the like but not like the cannon will have any advantages if you, the artificer, are visible.

The cannon itself doesn't really intact with spells good or bad. Can't buff it but on the other hand it's practically immune to most of them being a magical item.

[Rukelnikov]

It's weird, right? Consider this example:

I'm an artificer, and I make the arcane cannon. I had it to the party wizard.

Wizard casts invisibility on herself.

I cast invisibility on myself.

I then attack with my cannon, held by the wizard... what happens?



As I understand, I turn visible. But does the cannon? Does the wizard? If my canon is made visible but not the wizard, could it attack, then move into their invisible robe/backpack to be hidden?

There seems to be a lot of odd ways the arcane cannon could work with spells. I don't know the answer, just theory crafting really.

Indeed. I think its been deliberately left vague because it needed to work for a pistol, as much as it had to work for a turret, its pretty much, describe whatever you want its direct effect in combat will be these. The DM will have to make do with everything outside its direct HP effects.

In that specific case, the artificer would become visible for sure since they are doing an attack, the other wizard though..., I'd say becomes visible too. Imagine an invisible character takes aim with a crossbow to an enemy, and someone else comes and pulls the trigger, its not that different a scenario, and in the xbow example im confident they should both become visible.

[Keravath]

RaW the wizard would remain invisible which isn't really that big of deal. The wizard can move about without OAs and the like but not like the cannon will have any advantages if you, the artificer, are visible.

The cannon itself doesn't really intact with spells good or bad. Can't buff it but on the other hand it's practically immune to most of them being a magical item.

Not immune to spells ...

"The cannon is a magical object. Regardless of size, the cannon has an AC of 18 and a number of hit points equal to five times your artificer level. It is immune to poison damage and psychic damage. If it is forced to make an ability check or a saving throw, treat all its ability scores as 10 (+0). If the mending spell is cast on it, it regains 2d6 hit points. It disappears if it is reduced to 0 hit points or after 1 hour. You can dismiss it early as an action."

AC18, 5x artificer level hit points, makes saves or ability checks as if all its stats were 10. So I think it would be vulnerable to effects like fireball or other AoE damage.

Also - reading the effects of the cannon - I think that RAW, only the force ballista usage would result in loss of invisibility for the artificer.

Force ballista
"Make a ranged spell attack, originating from the cannon, at one creature or object within 120 feet of it. On a hit, the target takes 2d8 force damage, and if the target is a creature, it is pushed up to 5 feet away from the cannon."

The artificer is making a ranged spell attack that will break invisibility.

Flamethrower
"The cannon exhales fire in an adjacent 15-foot cone that you designate. Each creature in that area must make a Dexterity saving throw against your spell save DC, taking 2d8 fire damage on a failed save or half as much damage on a successful one. The fire ignites any flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried."

The effect uses the artificers spell save DC but the Artificer is not casting a spell or making an attack so RAW, it would likely not cause the loss of invisibility.

Similar for the protector version that gives temp hps.

[stoutstien]

Even the all mighty fireball only catches flammable object on fire (guessing artificer gets to decide what material it is) seeing how it specifically call the save is for creatures only.

Last time I did a pass through the number of spell that can damage the cannon is less than 20 and over half do nothing if the object isn't flammable. Flamebolt, acid arrow, scorching ray, and a handful of the "create magical hand/sword/whatever are it. Of course anti magic field works...unless you blow it up.

The cannon is like a mini Terminator. Slowly crawling and blasting with complete disregard to most magical effects. Best bet is pick it up and run away.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Even the all mighty fireball only catches flammable object on fire (guessing artificer gets to decide what material it is) seeing how it specifically call the save is for creatures only.

Catching on fire, and being blown to hell are two separate things.

Objects, normally, do not receive Saving Throws.
If one casts a Lightning Bolt at a stone wall…the wall does not have a chance to ‘save for half damage’….the wall just takes damage, (and might have a tunnel blasted through it).

The Eldritch Cannon, essentially is a new class of object, the Magical Object, that apparently does get Saving Throws.

A DM, would be perfectly fine by RAW, to rule that a held Eldritch Cannon, does not qualify as an “attended item” and rule that the Eldritch Cannon in question has to make it’s own Saving Throws when the holder and Cannon are hit by a Fireball.

The creation of the category: Magical Object…was a misstep, in my opinion.

The Eldritch Cannon is a magical drone…making it a Construct, creates fewer issues then creating a new category of Objects. Indeed the Eldritch Cannon, is the only Magical Object in the game.

Stoutstein, has an excellent handle on Artificers. That said, giving the Eldritch Cannon, spell immunity because it is not quite an Object and not quite a Creature, seems overly generous to me, and lends itself to wierd results…..such as an armed Radio Controlled Car being unaffected by a Fireball spell, due to wording issues.

In my mind, Big Ball of Fire trumps a pistol sized Dragon shaped Automaton, that could be an Eldritch Cannon.

Make Eldritch Cannons, Constructs…it is a simpler and more elegant solution to my mind, then making them magical objects.

[stoutstien]

Catching on fire, and being blown to hell are two separate things.

Objects, normally, do not receive Saving Throws.
If one casts a Lightning Bolt at a stone wall…the wall does not have a chance to ‘save for half damage’….the wall just takes damage, (and might have a tunnel blasted through it).

The Eldritch Cannon, essentially is a new class of object, the Magical Object, that apparently does get Saving Throws.

A DM, would be perfectly fine by RAW, to rule that a held Eldritch Cannon, does not qualify as an “attended item” and rule that the Eldritch Cannon in question has to make it’s own Saving Throws when the holder and Cannon are hit by a Fireball.

The creation of the category: Magical Object…was a misstep, in my opinion.

The Eldritch Cannon is a magical drone…making it a Construct, creates fewer issues then creating a new category of Objects. Indeed the Eldritch Cannon, is the only Magical Object in the game.

Stoutstein, has an excellent handle on Artificers. That said, giving the Eldritch Cannon, spell immunity because it is not quite an Object and not quite a Creature, seems overly generous to me, and lends itself to wierd results…..such as an armed Radio Controlled Car being unaffected by a Fireball spell, due to wording issues.

In my mind, Big Ball of Fire trumps a pistol sized Dragon shaped Automaton, that could be an Eldritch Cannon.

Make Eldritch Cannons, Constructs…it is a simpler and more elegant solution to my mind, then making them magical objects.

Id agree it falls in a weird space but spells tend to do what they say and fireball isn't an explosion (besides for one plot hook where they should have used shatter to begin with but fireball has more headline value..). The cannon isn't getting immunity to spells as much as spells just weren't designed to deal with something as odd as the cannon which in my mind is on brand for a class hacking the weave rather than controlling it. I've personally added some stuff to address this space like spells that target magic items and disrupts them for a period.
like I said a cannon alone is easy picking for mage hand, familiar, mold earth, mook, a well placed kick, or basically anything that would stop a rumba as long as it doesn't specify creatures. If actually a nice change that the caster has to adjust to something rather than the martial. It a give n take.

Alternatively you could just make it a construct with a clause to share space and total cover when doing so. Although then you have weird stuff to deal with like now its a creature so it can be invisible but doesn't actually make attack with the ballistia option.

[Ogun]

What if the Artificer is hidden from the target but not invisible?
Would this grant Advantage, even if the cannon is in plain view?
Would the Artificer's location be revealed by the attack?

[stoutstien]

What if the Artificer is hidden from the target but not invisible?
Would this grant Advantage, even if the cannon is in plain view?
Would the Artificer's location be revealed by the attack?

Yes and yes per the unseen attacker rules. The flamethrower is more of a pondering. I'd say either rule the artificer is still the source due to the action component of be prepared for shenanigans.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Id agree it falls in a weird space but spells tend to do what they say and fireball isn't an explosion

The Fireball spell has this sentence as the opening line of the spell description:

A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame.

If “spells do what they say they do”, then Fireball does, indeed, cause an explosion.

A bit of an aside, while this message board tends to have posts that favor a literalist interpretation of the rules, (which the slogan “Spells do what they say they do” seems to be a rallying cry of the literalist school of thought)……

…..I think it important that the views of the Simulation School also have representation. As a Simulationist DM friend of mine, pointed out to me yesterday, a small size creature, (such as a goblin), can under RAW, squeeze into an old fashion style milk bottle.

Since, by RAW, the Tiny size is essentially defined as anything smaller than a bread box, small creatures can squeeze into a medium sized creature’s pocket!

I doubt a Simulationist DM would allow either of those events to happen.
In that same vein, I doubt a Simulationist DM would allow certain spell avoiding shenanigans, for an Eldritch Cannon, that a literal interpretation of the rules result in.

Either way you slice it, the Eldritch Cannon requires adjudication, as it is an addition to the ruleset, that is not a seamless fit.

(Though well worth the effort)

[Ogun]

Fair, but unsatisfactory, since it means the target somehow knows where the Artificer is , even if there was 30 feet of solid stone between them.
That is goofy.

Not granting advantage to the cannon attack, and not revealing the location of the Artificer seems fair and more satisfying, though it's not supported by RAW.

[stoutstien]

The Fireball spell has this sentence as the opening line of the spell description:

A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame.

If “spells do what they say they do”, then Fireball does, indeed, cause an explosion.

A bit of an aside, while this message board tends to have posts that favor a literalist interpretation of the rules, (which the slogan “Spells do what they say they do” seems to be a rallying cry of the literalist school of thought)……

…..I think it important that the views of the Simulation School also have representation. As a Simulationist DM friend of mine, pointed out to me yesterday, a small size creature, (such as a goblin), can under RAW, squeeze into an old fashion style milk bottle.

Since, by RAW, the Tiny size is essentially defined as anything smaller than a bread box, small creatures can squeeze into a medium sized creature’s pocket!

I doubt a Simulationist DM would allow either of those events to happen.
In that same vein, I doubt a Simulationist DM would allow certain spell avoiding shenanigans, for an Eldritch Cannon, that a literal interpretation of the rules result in.

Either way you slice it, the Eldritch Cannon requires adjudication, as it is an addition to the ruleset, that is not a seamless fit.

(Though well worth the effort)

It definitely takes some adjudication but so does the class as a whole. It plays in the grey areas of the game with crafting, object interactions, and features/item manipulation.


Fair, but unsatisfactory, since it means the target somehow knows where the Artificer is , even if there was 30 feet of solid stone between them.
That is goofy.

Not granting advantage to the cannon attack, and not revealing the location of the Artificer seems fair and more satisfying, though it's not supported by RAW.

That's more of a byproduct of the sight rules.

[Thunderous Mojo]

It definitely takes some adjudication but so does the class as a whole. It plays in the grey areas of the game with crafting, object interactions, and features/item manipulation.

The class as a whole, runs swimmingly, outside of some questions that can pop up due to the Spell Storing Item. To my mind it is only the Eldritch Cannon that leads to minor dusts ups…in part due to the systemic issues with Seen/Unseen Attacker rules of 5e.

Thematically, some players are just opposed to the concept of the Artificer. Mechanically, I like the 5e version much more than the 3e, though tastes vary in this regard.

[stoutstien]

The class as a whole, runs swimmingly, outside of some questions that can pop up due to the Spell Storing Item. To my mind it is only the Eldritch Cannon that leads to minor dusts ups…in part due to the systemic issues with Seen/Unseen Attacker rules of 5e.

Thematically, some players are just opposed to the concept of the Artificer. Mechanically, I like the 5e version much more than the 3e, though tastes vary in this regard.

Definitely. Most of the issues exist regardless of the class it just highlights them. The lack of crafting formulas or a system of discovery irks me