now we come into the old DND problem of realism vs utility.
The argument that restrictions for martial maneuvers are "Unrealistic" is the exact reason dnd doesnt have them.
Ive recently read through tome of battle again and had a good laugh about what grognards considered outlandishly "anime" (it includes things like distracting opponent sso they cant make opportunity attacks, it realy isnt what youve heard it is besides those classes that are obviously meant to be monk stand ins)
The argument always is the same, there should be no restrictions. the problem is that the way DnD is structured, if you do not restrict things, they are either better or worse.
That leads to the following situation
1. Either a maneuver is just a better combat option than a basic attack, then theres no reason no tto do it constantly. This so far has never happened.
2. a maneuver is a lot worse than a full attack -> this is how it is in most editions
3. you have to invest a massive ammount of feats to get a maneuver, which then leads to situation 1
Theres a reason the battlemasters maneuver require superiority dice. This gives it a form of ressource and risk management.
Thats why 4e had AEDU and why Tome of Battle had "Maneuvers Readied".
This knee jerk reaction of "but its unrealistic" is actually bad for having decent martials.
