I apologize, you might be reading too much into a word choice of mine. Most players and most tables don't use that optional module. WotC didn't state this in an "article," but Crawford has stated it in talks and Twitter a number of times, and the aforementioned D&D Beyond data backs him up pretty solidly. Many players use Feats, but most do not.
That's fine. I get the distinction that as an optional module, you can object to the word banned as a little too strong if the DM simply chooses not to allow it.
But my experience is that most DMs do allow it, even though in many games players may not choose to take a feat.
A couple of pages back someone specifically stated that WotC said most players do not play in games where feats were allowed.
That is entirely different, and separate from the "most players do not take feats" statement that they have made, and that I was aware of.
So, guys, there have been 2 books since the PHB in 2014 that have had any Feats: Xanathar's Guide had 3 pages of Feats in 2017, and Tasha's Vauldron had 3 pages in 2020. 6 pages of content, in 6 years of publication, for a feature used by a minority of players ~15-16 million strong. Of 25 million customers warrant less than. Apafe a year, features with an audience of hundreds do not warrant while pages.
I can't speak for most publications and whether they contained feats. But I'm sure Eberron did.
Currently the 5e weapon list is not great. It is full of duplicates and virtual duplicates. And only some of the weapons are supposed in magic items or the official options (feats).
There is practically no reason to buy a Warhammer or flail.
. . . Maybe you would like your character to use a warhammer? Or a Flail?
This was a deliberate choice: If you want your character to use a warhammer, you are free to make that choice.
If the Warhammer, Battle-axe, Longsword had different properties, then there would be a "best choice" for a given character, and so the player would feel required to pick that one, even if they wanted their character to use one of the others.
There have been a number of attempted redesigns of the weapon table suggested on ENworld. Some of these just involved giving weapons Finesse and an Asian name. Others went into more depth though, and if you do a search, you may be able to mine them for inspiration.
And who thought up the trident.
Pretty sure that that was included like the greatclub and Hide armour: its an iconic weapon used by a number of adversaries, but wasn't necessarily there to be a prime choice for a player character.
Now the weapon table certainly has things that I object to: I've houseruled Quarterstaves as two-handed weapons, and Bows as Finesse almost since I began DMing 5e. But overall I like the fact that practically all weapons are represented there, particularly if you're OK with just changing the weapon type.
Well you can't grab another weapon with a sword.
Uh, you can control its position, lock it with the guard, or even bind it.
So . . . yes you can, if that is what you mean by grab.
This is like the "flails bypass shields" myth, and one of the reasons that 5e generally grants the capability for special attacks as a function of the user, not the weapon.
Now, I'd definitely like to see more capabilities like shoving, grappling, and disarming granted as martial options. I'm just not sure that they should be locked behind weapon types.
But you could do it with special attacks just like the ones in the DMG. And give bonuses and penalties based on the weapon or weapon. A zero damage didn't to add bonus damage to the next attack. A bonus action attack attack after hitting with a combo started. A slashing attack to break a wooden shield. A trip then overhead smash with a bonus for having welding an axe or hammer. Repelling with a spear or pike to attack while defending. A shieldwall. A spearwall.
I will await with interest.
