You can make a cannon when holding a shield in one hand and your tools in the other.
However, you cannot actually carry the cannon in your hands because they are both full. You'd need to leave it on the ground, or put away your tools or shield before picking it up and carrying it.
Haha fun idea but that's that's gonna ride completely on DM fiat. Its like trying to strap a sword to a shield and make attacks with it. I'd rule against it, since it is very clearly trying to cheese around the very clear intent of the feature. Either the cannon can't properly stay attached to you, or you do some engineering to affix it to your shield, in which case your shield now no longer functions as a shield.
Haha fun idea but that's that's gonna ride completely on DM fiat. Its like trying to strap a sword to a shield and make attacks with it. I'd rule against it, since it is very clearly trying to cheese around the very clear intent of the feature. Either the cannon can't properly stay attached to you, or you do some engineering to affix it to your shield, in which case your shield now no longer functions as a shield.
Dont forget the cannon has it's own AC, so your shield still works, and the attack may miss you but hit your cannon and destroy it lol
What you're running into, with any sort of jimmy-johning to get the cannon attached to you without holding it in your hand, is that a significant percentage of DMs will rule that artificers do not get extra hands. You have precisely two hands, and each hand can do one thing at a time. If you want the cannon to do its bit independently of you, you need to use the Small, legged variety with its godawful 15' movement speed; if you want the cannon to be able to move faster than a drunken one-legged tortoise under a Slow spell on its back, you need to put down either your Firearm or your shield and pick that thing up with a hand.
Now obviously any artificer worth the name could design what amounts to a shoulder turret, an attachment point for a Tiny cannon somewhere on their body/armor, but many DMs will nix this because they don't feel it's fair for the artificer to be able to manipulate more than two things at a time without any especial resources - especially when there's already a provision for an independently operated cannon that leaves your hands free whilst still obeying your bonus commands. They will say "either you hold it in your hand or it walks on its own - it doesn't get to benefit from your legs unless it's in your hand."
This would be something to discuss with a DM prior to playing an Artillerist, especially if your battle plans hinge on carrying a Tiny cannon on your shield or shoulder or hat brim or what-have-you. I would honestly argue that the entire artificer class is something you need to discuss with the DM; if you have a restrictive, by-the-books DM who doesn't like going outside published material for any reason, this class is going to SUCK to play, for both the player who can't do any actual artifice with their artificer, and for the DM who is constantly fighting with the player going "IS IT IN THE PHB?! NO?! THEN YOU CAN'T FRICKIN' MAKE IT SO STOP ASKING!"
I would rule that a cannon could use a PC as a mount if it was small enough to ride on the creature, say on a shoulder. The PC would then follow the rules for an independent mount.
Personally I'd reference the mount rules in this case. It's got a level of autonomy that should be able to handle riding on you. As a DM I wouldn't see a problem with it.
I've always gone with what I believe to be RAI, either the Cannon walks, or you carry it in hand, no shoulder mounting shenanigans. This is how i play my Artillerist. The Cannon specifies it has a climbing ability as long as it has legs, but also states it cannot climb in an occupied space. You are an occupied space, so the cannon cannot use its climb to crawl up and mount you.
I've always gone with what I believe to be RAI, either the Cannon walks, or you carry it in hand, no shoulder mounting shenanigans. This is how i play my Artillerist. The Cannon specifies it has a climbing ability as long as it has legs, but also states it cannot climb in an occupied space. You are an occupied space, so the cannon cannot use its climb to crawl up and mount you.
Of course, all DMs are different.
Yup, this is how I rule as well. I'm pretty open to spontaneous creative uses for spells or features, but i'm wary of rule bending designed to eek out a persistent mechanical advantage. The mechanics of the cannon seem pretty clear, and the 'shield mounting' or shoulder mounting relies on some creative Air Bud rules to work.
If my player has a particular creative fantasy they want to fulfill, I tend to get a lot more flexible. For example, I'd allow an artificer spend time/gold inventing or commissioning a harness of some kind that could properly allow it to function as some sort of shoulder mounted blaster or something of the sort.
Most artificers would be happy to invest time/coin into such an addition to their kit. That's kinda what most of us got into the class to do, I would think - make cool stuff that goes outside the rigid constraints of the game. Sadly, D&D isn't much good for that sort of thing. The game does not tolerate outside-the-box creativity well, which makes the class itself kind of a poor fit for the 5e ideology.
Thankfully, my DM allows my character to pick up the Small version of his cannon and place it on his shoulder. My character creates a 6 legged cannon usually, which attaches itself to portions of the characters armor. He does have to use a full action to do this... so there is a drawback.
I do see how some DM's would rule against this and call it shenanigans, but I make the counter argument that the Eldrich cannon is not just a bonus attack, but is a viable target for enemies on the battlefield. When it is mounted on the characters shoulder, this aspect is lost.
Thankfully, my DM allows my character to pick up the Small version of his cannon and place it on his shoulder. My character creates a 6 legged cannon usually, which attaches itself to portions of the characters armor. He does have to use a full action to do this... so there is a drawback.
Why would you have to use a full action? It's only half your movement to mount something.
I do see how some DM's would rule against this and call it shenanigans, but I make the counter argument that the Eldrich cannon is not just a bonus attack, but is a viable target for enemies on the battlefield. When it is mounted on the characters shoulder, this aspect is lost.
Why would the aspect of the cannon being a viable target be lost just because it has mounted a character? Would a knight on top of their steed also not be a viable target?
Thankfully, my DM allows my character to pick up the Small version of his cannon and place it on his shoulder. My character creates a 6 legged cannon usually, which attaches itself to portions of the characters armor. He does have to use a full action to do this... so there is a drawback.
Why would you have to use a full action? It's only half your movement to mount something.
I do see how some DM's would rule against this and call it shenanigans, but I make the counter argument that the Eldrich cannon is not just a bonus attack, but is a viable target for enemies on the battlefield. When it is mounted on the characters shoulder, this aspect is lost.
Why would the aspect of the cannon being a viable target be lost just because it has mounted a character? Would a knight on top of their steed also not be a viable target?
I should have been more clear. This is homebrew... Its a trade off for allowing the cannon to "ride" the character. As mentioned above, some would see allowing this as giving Artificers a "third hand". And my DM does allow my character to build the cannon and place it on the shoulder in one action. But if the cannon is already made and I want to pick it up during battle and place it on the shoulder, it requires an action. It just forces me to plan attacks better.
As for viable target. Sure, an enemy could still target the cannon on the shoulder (but why would they?), and any area affect damage would also hit the cannon, but my point is more on the battlefield the cannon can be a distraction, or used in a choke point, or just used as bait. Your "knight on steed analogy" doesn't translate well though... the cannon is quite small compared to your character, and NOT in control of the characters movement. I fully reject the premise.
Thankfully, my DM allows my character to pick up the Small version of his cannon and place it on his shoulder. My character creates a 6 legged cannon usually, which attaches itself to portions of the characters armor. He does have to use a full action to do this... so there is a drawback.
Why would you have to use a full action? It's only half your movement to mount something.
I do see how some DM's would rule against this and call it shenanigans, but I make the counter argument that the Eldrich cannon is not just a bonus attack, but is a viable target for enemies on the battlefield. When it is mounted on the characters shoulder, this aspect is lost.
Why would the aspect of the cannon being a viable target be lost just because it has mounted a character? Would a knight on top of their steed also not be a viable target?
I should have been more clear. This is homebrew... Its a trade off for allowing the cannon to "ride" the character. As mentioned above, some would see allowing this as giving Artificers a "third hand". And my DM does allow my character to build the cannon and place it on the shoulder in one action. But if the cannon is already made and I want to pick it up during battle and place it on the shoulder, it requires an action. It just forces me to plan attacks better.
I understand that it's homebrew, I'm just asking why your DM completely ignores the rules for mounting creatures.
As for viable target. Sure, an enemy could still target the cannon on the shoulder (but why would they?), and any area affect damage would also hit the cannon, but my point is more on the battlefield the cannon can be a distraction, or used in a choke point, or just used as bait. Your "knight on steed analogy" doesn't translate well though... the cannon is quite small compared to your character, and NOT in control of the characters movement. I fully reject the premise.
That's a bit weird Are you saying that a gnome sitting on the shoulder of a giant also wouldn't be a viable target? Why's that? Also, noone has claimed that the cannon would be "in control of the characters movement". Why did you make that up?
Strictly speaking, I don't think you need explicit homebrew to mount the cannon on something. Actual quote from Crawford on this question, answering if you could shoulder-mount an eldritch cannon: "That’s not the intended use, but there’s no rule against it" (from https://www.inverse.com/gaming/dungeons-dragons-tashas-cauldron-of-everything-review)
There's no rule that states the cannon must be held in a hand. "A Small eldritch cannon occupies its space, and a Tiny one can be held in one hand." --- that's using a hand as a size indicator --- "can" not "must." A tiny cannon can also crawl around at 15 feet of movement.
"When you create the cannon, you determine its appearance and whether it has legs." --- to crib from other posters here and their stories about homunculus servants...you could make a tiny cannon in the shape of a hat. Maybe a hat with a chin strap, that sits on your head and blasts things as you direct it with bonus actions... a shoulder mount, or forearm/wrist mount, or anything else like that, should do just fine. It wouldn't need to use the mount rules.
The tradeoff, in terms of game balance, isn't about hand use. If the cannon is walking around on its own, it's a separate object with separate HP, drawing attacks from things, which is better for you (consume the enemy's action economy). However, it's also slow and restricted to 15 feet of move, which is probably a negative. If you, instead, wear it or mount it on your shield or whatever, it moves with you (positive), probably isn't drawing attacks (negative), and is probably still taking damage/saves from AoEs that hit you (negative). (And, if your DM wants, maybe enemies start trying to snipe it off of you...)
Essentially, is it possible? Can I make a cannon while holding my tools and a shield or do I need 2 hands?
You can make a cannon when holding a shield in one hand and your tools in the other.
However, you cannot actually carry the cannon in your hands because they are both full. You'd need to leave it on the ground, or put away your tools or shield before picking it up and carrying it.
Why carry it, it can walk and it can climb, get it to climb onto your shield. Now you have a shield that can fire lol
From Within Chaos Comes Order!
Haha fun idea but that's that's gonna ride completely on DM fiat. Its like trying to strap a sword to a shield and make attacks with it. I'd rule against it, since it is very clearly trying to cheese around the very clear intent of the feature. Either the cannon can't properly stay attached to you, or you do some engineering to affix it to your shield, in which case your shield now no longer functions as a shield.
Dont forget the cannon has it's own AC, so your shield still works, and the attack may miss you but hit your cannon and destroy it lol
From Within Chaos Comes Order!
Have it clamp on to your shield like a blaster cannot attachment?
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
What you're running into, with any sort of jimmy-johning to get the cannon attached to you without holding it in your hand, is that a significant percentage of DMs will rule that artificers do not get extra hands. You have precisely two hands, and each hand can do one thing at a time. If you want the cannon to do its bit independently of you, you need to use the Small, legged variety with its godawful 15' movement speed; if you want the cannon to be able to move faster than a drunken one-legged tortoise under a Slow spell on its back, you need to put down either your Firearm or your shield and pick that thing up with a hand.
Now obviously any artificer worth the name could design what amounts to a shoulder turret, an attachment point for a Tiny cannon somewhere on their body/armor, but many DMs will nix this because they don't feel it's fair for the artificer to be able to manipulate more than two things at a time without any especial resources - especially when there's already a provision for an independently operated cannon that leaves your hands free whilst still obeying your bonus commands. They will say "either you hold it in your hand or it walks on its own - it doesn't get to benefit from your legs unless it's in your hand."
This would be something to discuss with a DM prior to playing an Artillerist, especially if your battle plans hinge on carrying a Tiny cannon on your shield or shoulder or hat brim or what-have-you. I would honestly argue that the entire artificer class is something you need to discuss with the DM; if you have a restrictive, by-the-books DM who doesn't like going outside published material for any reason, this class is going to SUCK to play, for both the player who can't do any actual artifice with their artificer, and for the DM who is constantly fighting with the player going "IS IT IN THE PHB?! NO?! THEN YOU CAN'T FRICKIN' MAKE IT SO STOP ASKING!"
Please do not contact or message me.
I would rule that a cannon could use a PC as a mount if it was small enough to ride on the creature, say on a shoulder. The PC would then follow the rules for an independent mount.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Personally I'd reference the mount rules in this case. It's got a level of autonomy that should be able to handle riding on you. As a DM I wouldn't see a problem with it.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Since the turret can have limbs, it can hold on to the shield itself. :)
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I've always gone with what I believe to be RAI, either the Cannon walks, or you carry it in hand, no shoulder mounting shenanigans. This is how i play my Artillerist. The Cannon specifies it has a climbing ability as long as it has legs, but also states it cannot climb in an occupied space. You are an occupied space, so the cannon cannot use its climb to crawl up and mount you.
Of course, all DMs are different.
Yup, this is how I rule as well. I'm pretty open to spontaneous creative uses for spells or features, but i'm wary of rule bending designed to eek out a persistent mechanical advantage. The mechanics of the cannon seem pretty clear, and the 'shield mounting' or shoulder mounting relies on some creative Air Bud rules to work.
If my player has a particular creative fantasy they want to fulfill, I tend to get a lot more flexible. For example, I'd allow an artificer spend time/gold inventing or commissioning a harness of some kind that could properly allow it to function as some sort of shoulder mounted blaster or something of the sort.
Most artificers would be happy to invest time/coin into such an addition to their kit. That's kinda what most of us got into the class to do, I would think - make cool stuff that goes outside the rigid constraints of the game. Sadly, D&D isn't much good for that sort of thing. The game does not tolerate outside-the-box creativity well, which makes the class itself kind of a poor fit for the 5e ideology.
Oh well.
Please do not contact or message me.
15 feet of movement can be quite annoying in combat.
Thankfully, my DM allows my character to pick up the Small version of his cannon and place it on his shoulder. My character creates a 6 legged cannon usually, which attaches itself to portions of the characters armor. He does have to use a full action to do this... so there is a drawback.
I do see how some DM's would rule against this and call it shenanigans, but I make the counter argument that the Eldrich cannon is not just a bonus attack, but is a viable target for enemies on the battlefield. When it is mounted on the characters shoulder, this aspect is lost.
Why would you have to use a full action? It's only half your movement to mount something.
Why would the aspect of the cannon being a viable target be lost just because it has mounted a character? Would a knight on top of their steed also not be a viable target?
I should have been more clear. This is homebrew... Its a trade off for allowing the cannon to "ride" the character. As mentioned above, some would see allowing this as giving Artificers a "third hand". And my DM does allow my character to build the cannon and place it on the shoulder in one action. But if the cannon is already made and I want to pick it up during battle and place it on the shoulder, it requires an action. It just forces me to plan attacks better.
As for viable target. Sure, an enemy could still target the cannon on the shoulder (but why would they?), and any area affect damage would also hit the cannon, but my point is more on the battlefield the cannon can be a distraction, or used in a choke point, or just used as bait. Your "knight on steed analogy" doesn't translate well though... the cannon is quite small compared to your character, and NOT in control of the characters movement. I fully reject the premise.
I understand that it's homebrew, I'm just asking why your DM completely ignores the rules for mounting creatures.
That's a bit weird Are you saying that a gnome sitting on the shoulder of a giant also wouldn't be a viable target? Why's that? Also, noone has claimed that the cannon would be "in control of the characters movement". Why did you make that up?
Strictly speaking, I don't think you need explicit homebrew to mount the cannon on something. Actual quote from Crawford on this question, answering if you could shoulder-mount an eldritch cannon: "That’s not the intended use, but there’s no rule against it" (from https://www.inverse.com/gaming/dungeons-dragons-tashas-cauldron-of-everything-review)
There's no rule that states the cannon must be held in a hand. "A Small eldritch cannon occupies its space, and a Tiny one can be held in one hand." --- that's using a hand as a size indicator --- "can" not "must." A tiny cannon can also crawl around at 15 feet of movement.
"When you create the cannon, you determine its appearance and whether it has legs." --- to crib from other posters here and their stories about homunculus servants...you could make a tiny cannon in the shape of a hat. Maybe a hat with a chin strap, that sits on your head and blasts things as you direct it with bonus actions... a shoulder mount, or forearm/wrist mount, or anything else like that, should do just fine. It wouldn't need to use the mount rules.
The tradeoff, in terms of game balance, isn't about hand use. If the cannon is walking around on its own, it's a separate object with separate HP, drawing attacks from things, which is better for you (consume the enemy's action economy). However, it's also slow and restricted to 15 feet of move, which is probably a negative. If you, instead, wear it or mount it on your shield or whatever, it moves with you (positive), probably isn't drawing attacks (negative), and is probably still taking damage/saves from AoEs that hit you (negative). (And, if your DM wants, maybe enemies start trying to snipe it off of you...)