I really wish the Player's Handbook had the spells divided by level instead of alphabetically. I mean the spells could still be alphabetized for each spell level, but overall alphabetization just makes things a bit frustrating.
Never do I go looking for a spell thinking to myself, "Man, I really want to find a spell that starts with the letter P."
I'm more apt to look for spells this way, "I could really use a spell of level 1 power, let me see what it has along with it's description."
Slit518 wrote:
I would like a magazine of spells with a couple different indexes.
sandvirm wrote:
I completely disagree with you. I think 3.x did the best job of all editions of organizing spells.
sandvirm wrote:
It's a pain in the butt finding spells in the rules cyclopedia because they're sorted by level.
Best solution... an electronic searchable document. It's be nice if WotC would invent one of those.
FFSAA wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if the spells said what class they were for in their entries as well?
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
The only reference you'll ever need for all things related to PHB spells. Does not appear to have anything from Elemental Evil.
Issue raised is still valid. Gotta get dat ctrl+F too.
Slit518 wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
bawylie wrote:
....No less than three such alternatives have already been presented in this thread, and most take advantage of electronic filters (which are better than printing a gazillion indexes, as you can see from #2 here).
- A filterable spell index spreadsheet.
- Multiple spell indexes (that are basically the output you'd get from the spreadsheet).
- A web-based filter tool
I've even modified the first one, creating a spreadsheet that adds in spells available through subclasses and the Elemental Evil spells as well as shorthand spell descriptions for what each spell does. (It's here, however it also has my artificer's spells added to it for now. I was using it, in part, to check for overlap on the spell lists. Because that's something you can do easily with a software index that you can't easily do with a print one.) One day I'll add in range and maybe whether it's an attack roll, a save, or the like, but those are low priority.
That said, if a "Spell Compendium" were ever released, this is basically the format I'd like it to take too.
bawylie wrote:
DoctorBadWolf wrote:
joeburgos wrote:
Slit518 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Diving the spells by level would be the least they could do. Ideally, they should be subdivided into chapters for the spells of each class, and those descriptions should then be by level.
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Here's a question. Does any one who primarily DMs agree that spells should be presented by level rather than alphabetically?
As a DM, I would hate to have them sorted by level. Yeah, I need a list telling us what levels they are (like we have in the PHB), and it wouldn't go amiss to have a listing under the spell description itself, but I look up spells all the time, and I don't want an extra amount of mental overhead of having to remember what level they are and include that variable in my physical search routine.
This sounds to me like it is an issue of character creation for players. That is a much more limited usage scenario and it would be a mistake to organize reference material to favor that scenario over the more common scenario of looking up a spell the name of which you already know. Once player has chosen their spells, their character sheet will have the levels recorded (and ideally, the page number for quick reference).
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I don’t know if 5E is like 3E on spells, but in 3E you have the same spell for two different classes. Each class can have the spell at a different level. The cleric might have it at level two and the magic user would have it at level three. That would be hard to have it in the book only once.
Now one advantage to a PDF is that they can link the spells in the lists to the actual spell description. WotC needs to get on it.
SirAntoine wrote:
I am ok with alphabetical. What drives me insane is the lack of class information in the spell details on who can cast it. Old books had it! I could simply see the spell description and knew instantly what class had it!
Who the hell left that out? 
Omnilicious wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
It's not hard to find spells in 2e during play since spells are listed by level in the monster description and in the module. It's a royal pain in the ass having spells listed alpha.
I could probably go with 2E or 3E way of listing spells both a re probably better than the current format. A problem with the 2E way though is there are a lot more classes now back then you could have it as priest spells and wizard spells.
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
sorry if this has all been said ...
Slit518 wrote:
I'm with Azzy here - and the fact that spells can be upcast in 5e changes things quite a bit. You couldn't cast a 5th level lightning bolt in 2e, but you can in 5e, and a by-level system will not list Lightning Bolt among the 5ths. You have to know that, underneath that upcast, it's natively a 3rd level spell, which adds another piece of information you need to list with your spells to find them in the PHB. Another piece of information you can ignore if you go alphabetical.
(At least when 5e adopted the 3.5 idea of spells, they decided to standardize spell levels. No longer is Lesser Restoration, for instance, a 2nd level cleric spell but a 1st level paladin spell - it's 2nd level and on both lists.)
And splitting them up by class as well as by level really only works if the class lists are 1) not overlapping, as people have mentioned, and 2) static, which is not true for any caster with a subclass (except the wizard and sorcerer, although the sorcerer gets several of these in Unearthed Arcana content). Invisibility won't be listed under druid, even though it's definitely a druid spell for Circle of the Grassland druids. Oh, look, more flipping.
(Again, though, I do wish there was some indication of this normally - repeat the PHB class icons for the spells that belong to particular classes, with a greyscale version of that class' icon if the spell's available only through a subclass. But I digress, since that's secondary to the point.)
Alphabetical is fine. It's slightly slower during character construction, when you've got all the time in the world to prepare for next week's game. It's significantly faster at the table for both players and GMs, and it comes with an economy of space with minimal repetition. That's a win in my books.
Slit518 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I agree with the OP. Sort by class and level makes the most sense. The name of the spell has no baring on it at all, so sorting by name is useless. Generally, looking up spells is much faster by level, because casters have multiple spells and the most important spells are going to the ones of the caster's highest possible levels. For looking up a single spell, index is the fastest method in any case any the index is jsut as effective with level based sorting as it is with alphabetical sorting. I see no advantage at all to using alphabetical sorting.
Azzy1974 wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Slit518 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
The big difference I see is not so much in speed (alphabetical is faster/easier for looking up a /single/ spell), but for browsing and learning a character's spell capabilities - answering the question 'what can my character do with his magic?'
Class/level organization lets you do just that, become familiar with what a caster of your character's class & level can potentially do.
A single alphabetical list is good to browse if you want overall familiarity with the magic system as a whole. Which is good for a DM or would-be system master.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I also wish that.
Since spell level is the same for all classes, there is no need to have divine and arcane spells seperated with possible double listings like in adnd 2nd edition. So this time it would have been great.
Karnos wrote: