I considered backstab an accurate mechanic, if you are attacked from behind you will not be able to see the hit coming right? So having better chance to hit when hitting someone from behind was a good thing, it made sense. What has removing the backstab added to the chance you have to hit an enemy? Height also make sense, for long range having the highground is beneficial, for melee it is easier to attack someone higher than lower. The person above you would have to crouch to hit meanwhile it's fairly easy to swing your sword at their legs, it's harder to defend from melee attack when you are higher up unless you get out of range but then you can't really deal damage anymore.
So yeah.. I will miss backstab :V
The thing about this is that in DnD, each round is basically represented by 6 second intervals. It's the same principle behind swapping from real time into turn-based mode when you need to get past certain obstacles in BG3. In a fight, it is assumed that an enemy will be aware of their attackers in melee range at all times and will defend themselves appropriately. Sure, it makes sense that you have a higher chance of hitting someone from behind. But it makes
far less sense for them to simply stand there and let you circle behind them unless they're blinded. This is why people argue for an alternate flanking rule, because at least it means that the target is being distracted by someone else long enough for the attacker to find an opening.
