D&D (2024) Sort weapon table by...

[Horwath]

That only works if you already know the names on the list.

If you look for a Corseque, Guisarme, Hookbill, Voulge, Yari, ect... you're going to have trouble finding what your looking for.

Or your search for a dao, katana, gladius, saber... not going to have an east time.

If you look up 2 handed reach, then you can see glaive and halberd.
If you look up one handed finesse, you'll see the short sword and rapier.

this, weapons should be sorted by what role they perform not by name.

then if I want a 1Hander to pair with my shield I can see the group of several weapons that fill that role.

 

[Vael]

If I wanted to sort weapons by damage or mastery or whether or not it has finesse, that's what Excel or any other spreadsheet is for. For a paper unchanging copy, alphabetical is best.

 

[Laurefindel]

Speaking of diversifying weapons to have uniqueness, how many people think that B/S/P actually contributes to weapons being all that different from each other? Damage dies, properties and masteries can so much more to define a longsword from a warhammer than slashing or bludgeoning damage ever would, I think 4e had a generic ‘weapon damage’ type, how much would it actually effect 5e if it did the same, I realise there are a small handful of times where it’s relevant, skeletons or oozes, the crusher/slasher/piercer feats and the like, but I feel like they might be just as effective as minor properties than damage types(maybe B weapons have +2 to hit, P has +1 crit expansion, S does modifier extra bleed damage the following turn, or the like)

Oh, and I voted sort by damage

B/P/S has very little relevancy IMO. Fortunately, it doesn’t use much design space, so it being there doesn’t bother me. But it was the first thing I dropped I my D&D heartbreaker years ago.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Speaking of diversifying weapons to have uniqueness, how many people think that B/S/P actually contributes to weapons being all that different from each other? Damage dies, properties and masteries can so much more to define a longsword from a warhammer than slashing or bludgeoning damage ever would,

On their own, B/P/S aren’t mechanically significant enough to be worth anyone’s time. Maybe if the Tasha’s feats were incorporated into them and there were a lot more monsters with vulnerabilities and resistances to mundane B/P/S, but I think three types are probably too few to do anything interesting with.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

The current organizational format is correct, in my opinion. The designers have it right.

The purpose of a list should be for easy reference purposes, and if there are multiple lists, their categories should prioritized based on the most macro-sized choices to be made, down to the last choice.

1. Simple and Martial should be separated at the highest level because the earliest and most macro decision to make is at level 1, because EVERY class differentiates proficiency based on Simple vs. Martial Weapons. Most spellcasters do not need to be sifting through all the Martial Weapons. Armor is the same way (Light, Medium, Heavy, and Shield).
2. Melee and ranged are the next biggest differentiator, based on basic functionality.
3. Within those lists, it should be alphabetical based on the first column of the list (which means alphabetical by weapon name). A new player does not have the system mastery to know to look up weapons based on other damage/mastery/properties.

• Sorting by damage first will be less than helpful anyone who does not use Martial weapons.
• Sorting by Mastery is not helpful to anyone that doesn't use Mastery, therefore it should not be a primary differentiator.
• Sorting by Properties is not important to most classes or species that don't differentiate proficiency or function by property. Some weapons don't have properties/masteries, so where do they fit in the list? First? Last?

 

[Yaarel]

Currently, the weapons divide between melee and missile.

I would be ok if the "reach" weapons separated out from melee:
• various polearms
• greatsword (historical zveihaender or fantasy buster sword) thus gaining the extended "reach" trait
• "longspear" (pole and head about 10 feet) from earlier editions, gaining reach but losing thrown

 

[mellored]

Currently, the weapons divide between melee and missile.

I would be ok if the "reach" weapons separated out from melee:
• various polearms
• greatsword (historical zveihaender or fantasy buster sword) thus gaining the extended "reach" trait
• "longspear" (pole and head about 10 feet) from earlier editions, gaining reach but losing thrown

I feel like one / two handed would be the next category to seperate.

 

[Yaarel]

I feel like one / two handed would be the next category to seperate.

The twohanded trait doesnt always mean reach, but is probably close enough to be useful.

 

[mellored]

The twohanded trait doesnt always mean reach, but is probably close enough to be useful.

I am assuming no change in the weapons.

But generally, you chose either a 2 hander, two weapon, or sword and shield. And stick with that category.

 

[Yaarel]

I am assuming no change in the weapons.

But generally, you chose either a 2 hander, two weapon, or sword and shield. And stick with that category.

Additionally, the "versatile" weapon style alternates with grappling with the shieldless offhand.

Meanwhile, the mages might be strictly cantrips without any weapon training.