payn
Glory to Marik
You are veering into strategy vs tactics territory and ignoring the fact that many folks like mechanical combat. You really cant blame them either when significant amount of the rules space in books is dedicated to combat. So, while you may occasionally dispatch a foe through a clever ruse, you will eventually have to actually fight by the combat rules.I would disagree.
Yes, a lot of DMs force only pure crunch rule mechanics with zero role playing for combat. Though most of these DMs will do this for all game actions. You can only get past the Gate Guard if your character makes a charisma check, type DMs. And even a lot of the DMs that are left will still want the crunch rule mechanics in combat for "feel" or "balance" or some other feeling.
But you can use "not on your character sheet" actions for things like battlefield control. Force a foe to fight on a ledge, on a slick surface, in water and so on. Or just knocking things down to make hard terrain. And you can even kill foes too. Get them on a high spot like a bridge walkway...and cut it loose. Get them in a room full of water. Drop them in a vat of acid or pool of lava. Drop a boulder on them.
For combat, way too many DMs and players are stuck in the box of combat must be like a video game: each side takes a turn to make an attack and do damage and the hit points go down. The side to loose all there hit points first looses.
Though there are ways to inflict damage that are not "I roll a 1d20 to hit" type attacks. For example, trapping a foe in an area that is on fire will cause them damage. Or if you trap the foe underwater: the AC of 30 with 200 hp don't matter if the foe is at the bottom of a river chained to a rock.....
If you examine the editions of D&D, many of the items you list here were difficult to accomplish. 3E/PF1 had rules for just about anything. Sure, you could knock stuff over, push a guy, dirty trick a monster, etc.. but it was mechanically bad to do so unless you put items on your character sheet that made the PC good at it. 4E/PF2 is built around tactics so that your moves/abilities/etc.. are designed to work in a teamwork fashion. So, yes, taking character sheet actions is often the most efficient and successful way to engage a combat encounter. I do think 5E leans more into the improv area with (dis)advantage mechanic, but for many, it feels too simplified and overused.
So, we are back to the rulings over rules topic. When do you ditch the rules and use rulings? I dont think there is a universal answer becasue this thread alone proves that some folks like mechanical guidance. It helps steer the GM/player towards expected play that is fairly arbitrated. Though, others enjoy the creative freedom a rulings philosophy can offer, at least in theory. It all comes down to the trust which I think is difficult to establish, which is why rules are popular with many gamers.