It doesn't bother me personally as I don't do MP, but I'm quite OK if they actually add stuff for variety that isn't strictly 5e; they seem to be adding "special" attacks depending on the weapon type selected, there's no reason to not add a few other abilities as long as the effects aren't silly ( by which I mean a martial feat that knocks the target back or down is sensible, but a martial feat that encases the target in a block of ice is silly ).
Abilities dependant on selected weapon makes sense, regardless if automatic or player-triggered.
But not is those abilities are bog-standard use for a weapon.
For a warhammer (classic one, with a spike on top), a thrust is as basic a part of regular combat moves.
A leg hook/trip with it or an exe would be more appropriate for a manouvre.
Not something you generally do due to how difficult it is to pull of and how exposed it leaves you.
But I definitely want multiple damage types per weapon, depending on weapon.
I've never much liked the idea of adding variety through things like critical success/critical failure either, it always seemed a bit lazy. I guess the obvious thing for combat specialists is to derive something like a stamina stat that is used up depending on action chosen and weapon/armour used, but basic D&D never seemed to go that route ( unless 4e did, I've never looked at that ).
Different criticals for different weapons?
I can kinda-sorta see it, some weapons can create nastier wounds, but I'd rather it be things like bleeding that straight up double damage. Then again, critical are done on a success roll, so...why not? Then again, they can easily mess up combat and difficulty, so seem them go might be for the better. On the fence here.
