" You can't have it both ways. You mention how it sucks that even with a +4 bonus you can fail. Well, the flip side is with no bonus you can still succeed. "

Wait, why do you perceive the fact that you can win a skill check with no bonus as a good thing? If everything is a Dice roll, then why should it matter what I am proficient in?

How is that fair? I mean, I know that in D&D that is how things are, but when talking about odds here, how does a warrior with no charisma persuade a lich to not suck his soul or whatever, whereas a warlock with lots of charisma, and he himself being a magic user not persuade the said lich?

Look, I`m not trying to destroy the D&D ruleset. I like the ruleset. But there are certain things that need to be addressed if we want this game to be actually enjoyable by "people", not just "D&D people".

Also I think somebody mentioned it earlier, but does it really feel rewarding when you pass a check by plain luck? Like let`s say you are supposed to intimidate a Troll to let you pass a bridge. Cool - > Intimidation/Persuasion check - > You, are a halfling cleric or whatever. You have no points in charisma/strength and you roll a Nat 20 on the check. So knowing all that, do you actually feel like you achieved something by passing that check through pure luck? I don`t.
And I`m curious what your opinion is on this issue laugh