Statting a wall-defense military fork

Question

The party is making their way through my 5e conversion of the classic D-series. They are about to come upon a high, battlemented wall being defended by drow troopers armed with military forks.

The encounter in question is at:

Hex QQ49 of D3: The Vault of the Drow

My version of a wall-defense military fork:

Martial Weapon: Two-handed, heavy, reach 10', one target, d8 piercing damage.

On a successful hit, a target of size S or M is Grappled (escape DC of 12). A target that escapes the grapple must immediately move directly away from the wielder of the fork until out of their reach before resuming normal movement.

As a reaction, the wielder of the fork may make an attack on an opponent that enters their reach. If the attack hits, the opponent's speed drops to 0 for the rest of the turn. This stops any movement they may have been taking.

Any attack from a military fork (normal or as a reaction) made on opponents within 5 feet is at disadvantage.

If the fork is currently grappling an opponent, no attacks with it (regular or as reactions) may be made on any other target.

Thoughts?

• I am interested in whether the mechanics as presented are clear (does not prompt further questions and edge cases),¹ and fit within existing 5e procedure (I'm not interested in inventing new kinds of abilities for this weapon).
• I am interested in whether this is appropriate for its intent - do the mechanics as presented make sense for a weapon used to defend a static fortification but of much less use on the open battlefield? [within the construct of 5e rules about cover, etc., I am not interested in RW military strategy and use]
• I am interested in whether this is balanced for use among drow - do the mechanics as presented make this the best weapon among those they traditionally carry [i.e. their standard sta block with short sword and hand crossbow] for its use here, but not something they would have elsewhere?
• I am somewhat interested in balance and possible interactions in the hands of PCs, but this is not intended for PC use². If a good case is made for why it produces unbalancing interactions with other PC abilities, suggestions for changing it would be appreciated.

¹_{Play Patrice's answer points out that it is undefined what happens if a single target is grappled by multiple forks. I would consider this a problem with the 5e grappling rules, not inherent to this proposal.}

²_{The weapon is not finesse, meaning the common drow have only a +2 to hit with it, at most +5 if I allow it to be made with the special drow metal that degrades in sunlight. At the level / AC of the PC's, hitting will be rare, and since the special abilities of the fork only activate on a hit, I don't see a balance issue. The calculus would change considerably in the hands of a PC.}

Answer 1

To be clear, I'm unclear on whether you're asking for balance analysis, but you've provided a list of items from which you'd like the proposed weapon evaluated, so I will try to respond specifically to those elements.

Are the mechanics as presented clear?

You've indicated that the weapon has the following properties:

• Heavy
• Two-Handed
• Reach 10'
• One target
• 1d8 piercing

Given that this is intended for use by a monster and not a player character, I would limit yourself to simply the 'to hit' bonus, the reach, the number of targets, and the damage amount.

As written, this conflates the weapon properties detailed and applicable to players with the information typically provided in a monster's stat block. Presumably, you're doing the latter, so just do that.

To that end, you've provided the relevant information for what occurs on an escape, so that should follow:

On a successful hit, a target of size S or M is Grappled (escape DC12). A target that escapes the grapple must immediately move directly away from the wielder of the fork until out of their reach before resuming normal movement.

I should point out that it's unclear whether the drow would get another AoO because the opponent is moving out of their reach. You may want to specifically state that the drow cannot get another AoO.

Any attack from a military fork (normal or as a reaction) made on opponents within 5 feet is at disadvantage.

If the fork is currently grappling an opponent, no attacks with it (regular or as reactions) may be made on any other target.

I think you can probably reword the element regarding no additional attacks while grappling, which I'll address at the end with a recommended re-write.

You should list as a separate Reaction within the monster's block the following information:

As a reaction, the wielder of the fork may make an attack on an opponent that enters their reach. If the attack hits, the opponent's speed drops to 0 for the rest of the turn. This stops any movement they may have been taking.

This should be clarified as whether the opponent's speed drops to 0 because of the attack or because the opponent becomes grappled. If the latter, state that they're grappled per the weapon's description and let the rest of the game's general rules handle the rest.

---

Is this appropriate for its intent? Do the mechanics as presented make sense for a weapon used to defend a static fortification but of much less use on the open battlefield?

I am interested in whether this is balanced for use among drow - do the mechanics as presented make this the best weapon among those they traditionally carry for its use here, but not something they would have elsewhere?

The issue I see with this is that within the mechanics of 5e, there is really no substantial drawback to carrying this weapon and another weapon. You might start with this weapon equipped, use it for an enemy's opening charge and then drop it to switch to a great sword.

The argument might be made that it's too costly to arm every soldier this way, but ultimately it's an extremely good weapon that has a lot of uses beyond just the described situation of defending the castle walls. Having this weapon means that, barring ranged attacks, my melee combatants always get to attack first; furthermore, they then get to drop their forks and proceed to attack again. That's 2 rounds of attacks dealt to my opponent before they can respond.

Were I the drow, I would be using this all the time. Almost any enemy they encounter in the Underdark would be made more manageable by their soldiers equipping these forks and another sidearm. Even if they cannot stop an opponent because they're large, they get the benefit of having the ability to attack an opponent before that opponent can attack them.

---

I am somewhat interested in balance and possible interactions in the hands of PCs, but this is not intended for PC use. If a good case is made for why it produces unbalancing interactions with other PC abilities, suggestions for changing it would be appreciated.

At current, I'm concerned that the drow NPCs would be hard-pressed to deny using this everywhere. For the reasons described above, the PCs would most definitely get a lot of benefit from having access to this type of weapon.

As stated in the comments, the features of this weapon are akin to having both the Sentinel feat (to drop an opponent's movement to 0 with an AoO) and the Polearm Master feat (to attack an opponent as an AoO that enters your reach).

---

Recommendations

As I stated above, I would recommend a re-write to try and bring this in line with what's used in the MM first and foremost. As part of that re-write, I would strive to avoid language that intermingles language from the PHB as there's a lot of reasons to keep this out of the hands of players. I recommend the following:

Drow Wall Guard

Actions

Sticky Long Spear. Melee Weapon Attack: +2 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 6 (1d8+2) bludgeoning damage, and the target is grappled (escape DC12). Until this grapple ends, the drow wall guard can't use its sticky long spear on another target. The drow wall guard has disadvantage on sticky long spear attacks against a target within 5 feet of them.

A target that escapes the grapple must move directly away from the drow wall guard until out of their reach before resuming normal movement, this movement does not provoke an Attack of Opportunity for moving out of an opponent's reach.

Reactions

Sticky Long Spear. The drow wall guard makes an attack with its sticky long spear when an opponent enters their reach.

---

This proposed revision used elements from the octopus, bandit captain, lance description, and pulled them together to create a custom weapon that's usable only by NPCs. You will note that I've removed any specific mentions of dropping an opponent's speed to 0, that language is inherent with the opponent becoming grappled.

You may wish to supplement with some language about how the long spears are regularly blessed by a priestess of Lolth to continue exuding webbing that's used to facilitate the grappling mechanic, but the webbing also glues the drow wall guard's hands to the spear (so they can't be easily disarmed). In doing so, you help restrict the usage of such a weapon beyond every rank and file soldier, and make it unusable by soldiers who are far away from the main cities, and finally make it so that these soldiers can't easily just switch to a better weapon when the situation devolves against them.

Answer 2

As written, the military fork is overpowered. Its a two-handed weapon with 1d8 damage die, grants the wielder a bonus feat (Sentinel) and gives the wielder a free ranged grapple.

The target is automatically grappled and THEN must make an escape attempt on their turn (blowing the target's movement / action for the round). Plus it gives the advantage of a "Free" feat to anyone who picks it up (Sentinel, you get to attack someone as they come into range). It does too much.

This is overpowered and can effectively kill your PC party even if the Drow are significantly weaker, especially with only 1-3 forks in the enemy party. Grapple usually involves opposing rolls, and if the defender loses - they receive the incapacitated condition. In this case, if the drow hits a player with the fork - that player is incapacitated:

An incapacitated creature can’t take actions or reactions.

And you have added the bonus effect of reducing the player's movement to zero, effectively shutting off the Player Character entirely until its next turn. As written the escape attempt must happen on the player's turn, and it results in both a burned action and burned movement. This can result in a permanent lockdown of any single player regardless of whether or not they "save" after being captured. This can very easily lead into an action economy loop where the player loses all control of their character each and every turn whether or not they make their "saving throw".

Combine that with the fact the drow will get at least two attacks per round (once on their turn, and once as part of the Sentinel reaction attack, or a normal reaction attack as the player makes their save and moves away) - and these drow will be hitting the players far more often than you think they otherwise should. And anything that can reliably shut down a PC this hard without any interactive play would make for a very frustrating and unfair circumstance for the players.

I would suggest changing the scope and abilities of the fork to something like this:

Military Fork: Reach, Two Handed, Polearm, Special

Damage 1d4.

Special: If you successfully hit a target with a military fork, you may forgo all additional attacks (bonus actions and reactions) to "Pin" the target between the tines. The target cannot move directly towards you. You may expend your movement to shove the target back 10 feet with an opposing Strength check, moving with the target. You must use your action each round to maintain the pin. The pin ends if you make any form of attack, move away from the target, or the target moves away from you. The pin does not prevent the opponent from making their own attacks normally (if able).

This way the fork has special case uses in close quarters, behaves differently in wide open spaces and allows for player autonomy. The fork can still significantly impact battlefield position as well as hamper melee characters in terms of damage output. And if you want an "Uber" Drow - you can give them the Sentinel feat which would allow a specific Drow to be able to create a "lockdown" event in terms of movement, rather than the lockdown event occurring as a matter of default.

From a tactical standpoint, it would take 2-3 drow with forks to force a "default" lockdown of the players (on each side), rather than just one drow with a fork per character. Creating a more dynamic scenario.

Answer 3

The weapon you are converting is much simpler

A military fork in the 1e PHB is a normal polearm weapon, with a length of 7+ feet. It can be set against a charge (dealing double damage on a hit, like most polearm weapons in that edition), and is able to dismount a rider. It does not mention a garotte-like grappling function at all. This is in line with what a military fork is looking like -- they are not serrated, and would not have that effect.

The military forks in Vault of the Drow are introduced to be 10 feet long instead, and are declared to be for wall defense (p. 85). I think the idea is that they can be used to stab at someone climbing the wall with reach, or to tip over ladders set against the wall by pushing them off. It is unclear what the use or purpose of a man-catcher grappling function would be for this.

The equivalent in 5e to what the adventure has would likely be a weapon that is similar to the other polearms: 1d10 piercing damage, two-handed, heavy, reach, and nothing else.

Just using the normal rules, this polearm could be set with a Ready action to attack a climber before they can hit back. There is no need for a built-in Polearm Master ability. And the climber would likely need to make a climbing check upon being hit, with failure resulting in falling off the wall. Moreover, with reach, several guards on the wall could hit the same climber, to kill them or make them fall.

It may be simpler to follow the spirit of the module you are trying to convert, and use a simple polearm here (which also would be balanced).

Your specific questions

I am interested in whether the mechanics as presented are clear (does not prompt further questions and edge cases), and fit within existing 5e procedure (I'm not interested in inventing new kinds of abilities for this weapon).

With the grapple ability you are inventing a new kind of ability for the weapon. None of the weapons in the core rules have this.

Likewise, I think you are mislead by the fact that in the real world (and in some other RPG systems), weapons with reach do grant you the ability to hit opponents before they can close in, while the ones in 5e do not -- they require taking a feat for it, or at least the Ready action. If other polearms do not have this built in, then this one should not either. It does not fit in with existing 5e procedure.

I am interested in whether this is appropriate for its intent - do the mechanics as presented make sense for a weapon used to defend a static fortification but of much less use on the open battlefield?

What you designed sounds more like a man-catcher, and these were typically used in field battles against riders, to pull them off the horse. This weapon thus sounds as if it designed more for an open battlefield, not less. It's not clear what the benefit of grappling would be for wall defense. In the worst case, the grappled creature could fall together with your weapon (granted, the rules have no mechanism for it, but conceptually). You would not want your weapon to stick to a single attacker for wall defense, you would want to be able to push off and hit as many different attackers as you can, so they don't make it to the top.

Polearms were commonly used on open battlefields, usually in formation, so it is likewise unclear why a polearm with reach would not be useful there. Swiss pikemen are a good example for how good polearms were in the field; they also had auxiliary swords or daggers if it came to close combat.

In 5e, because you can always drop a weapon for free, and draw another one for free with a free object interaction, as long as you have a secondary weapon disadvantage at close range mechanically is irrelevant. And the drow in the adventure you convert have multiple secondary weapons for close combat, both short swords and daggers, often even with magical bonuses. So, the mechanics do not make sense to foster use only on walls but not in the open battlefield.

I am interested in whether this is balanced for use among drow - do the mechanics as presented make this the best weapon among those they traditionally carry for its use here, but not something they would have elsewhere?

The weapon has built-in features that give you the best of both the powerful Sentinel and Polearm Master feats. This is really unbalanced. Those abilities should be features of the drow warrior wielding the weapon, not of the weapon itself. Especially in combination with a short sword, it is hard to see why a drow would not want to always use this. (See next section for more).

I am somewhat interested in balance and possible interactions in the hands of PCs, but this is not intended for PC use. If a good case is made for why it produces unbalancing interactions with other PC abilities, suggestions for changing it would be appreciated.

Being able to attack first with reach as a reaction and immobilize the opponent (and then you can just drop it and pull out your close range weapon or magical weapon for follow-up work) is extremely powerful. As is immobilizing and opponent who is trying to get away. This gives you benefits from two feats for free with the weapon. It's not balanced at all.