Originally Posted by 1varangian
Skill Checks

I'm not a big fan of the huge variance in the d20 checks.

The difference between skill rank -1 and +5 is not impactful enough. Someone completely untrained with a negative ability modifier can easily succeed a DC10 check, while the most naturally adept and trained character at +5 can fail it. The bounded accuracy highlights this randomness further as you don't get to assign more skill points to anything.

I wish it was a d12 check instead. DC7 on a d12 would be much better at reflecting the difference between min/max skill levels in the example above.

Or you should get more skill points as you level up.

OP - Yeah. That's everyone who was around for 5e's development said was going to happen. 5e was specifically designed for 'rulings, not rules' and to be free, easy & loose. This was a reaction to 4e which was mechanically tight & consistent but was focused on tactical combat.

As for why -1 to +5 doesn't feel like much? Welcome to statistics. The Standard Deviation on a d20 is 6, so modifiers less than 6 (while impactful on individual rolls) are statistically insignificant.

As for the feelings of boring - each turn being "move a bit, attack, maybe bonus action" - that was specifically built by WotC because "we don't want people spending too long trying to figure out what they're doing this turn".

All of this? not great for a computer game where precision in positioning and keeping track of mastadonic item/creature states is built in and trivial.

Which is a lot of words to say "WAD: Working As Designed"