See, that's the kind of philosophy I hate. Because with that kind of philosophy, you have the standard combat options available to anyone, and then beyond those, there is this whole nebula of "premium" combat options that you can't even begin to try without a feat =(

I much preferred the 3.5 methodology of, here are a bunch of combat options, anyone can try them. But, they're hard to succeed at. If you succeed, good work. If you have the feat, woosh, +4 on the check and no AoO. This tended to make it significantly easier. Now, you're *expected* to pull it off as opposed to it being a lucky shot.

I don't like the premium option mentality. I have absolutely *no* training with a sword. Yet, in 3.5 I can try to disarm someone. My chances aren't great, and when I botch it, they have a chance to take my sword. In 5e, I can remember seeing Bob disarm, and I can't even *try* what Bob did. It's like there is an invisibile reality wall saying "NO DISARMING WITHOUT A FEAT". It breaks immersion and hurts versatility.