The trick is just cherry pick... there are mechanics all over in D&D that you can focus fire on if you like or actually if you "don't like" actually its the danger of taking opinions as good enough reason. It is generally more like criticism with an agenda than anything legitimate and the rogue dancing in a fireball and taking zero damage while his friend in the same fire dies horribly in flames even though both "succeeded" on their saving throws. For one just take mechanic words literally.... that saving throw sure didnt save him from death in flames did it? and for the other its force feeding levels of realism that the abstraction of D&D was never meant to deal with ie - that rogue must be able to slide between raindrops. = note this does not bother me at all really - its an example just like the all the dice disappearing from your game of D&D because you let someone do damage on a miss it is a bit hyperbolic but it demonstrates the weaponization that went on.I do distinctly recall a tweet from Mike Mearls circa 2014 where he trolled people that he was going to remove "damage on a hit".
It is pretty easy to do but those people you mention in spite of Mearls opinion/attitude got the WOTC community forum closed down as burial mound for the edition they attacked. Treating their behavior as just an "opinion" which should be respected and should drive you to make exaggerated warnings about a low impact balanced mechanic ..... smh. I cannot think of a mechanic in D&D which does not have or has not had detractors based on nothing more than opinion and attempts at hyper-realism. We can discuss the mechanics whether they are balanced, whether they parallel other ones that are used, what they could represent and so on but bald faced opinion will call anything at all BAD WRONG FUN for "someone".
AND unless that someone is you and yours who the flank cares.