It sounds like you got burned by the inflation problem that 3rd edition had (and which pathfinder inherited from it) - where numbers just kept growing and growing ridiculously, and you'd end up with wizards with AC 50, and characters making skill checks against DCs of 90, and anyone who wasn't super-specialised to do a particular thing couldn't even try because there was no possibility of success unless you were specialised...
Fortunately, more recent versions of the system alleviated that problem.
In 5e, we have bounded accuracy as a principle that generally restricts the number bloat and means that specialists will have an easier and even a near-certain chance of doing the thing they're good at, but that most characters will generally still have a chance to succeed. AC generally doesn't go above ~23, at any point of play, or lower than ~9. Attack bonuses start at ~+2 and rarely go above ~+12. Ability scores for players start around ~10, but rarely, if ever, go above 20 (they can't without specific magic or abilities). Monster's Ability Scores can go as high as 30, but no higher.
No matter how good you are, a basic scrub still has a chance to land a lucky blow, and deal damage; you always have a chance of scoring a wound on that dragon - but the hero with experience, and magical gear has a much better chance and will almost certainly hit more regularly.
This is mostly close to what I was describing. I don't hate 3rd Edition. I just think it has it's flaws. And some of them may be highly subjective, which I fully admit. And the only experience I have with later editions consists of Solasta and BG3, both of which I absolutely love.
As a side note, I once tried a mod that changed BG2 into 3rd edition. Boy was that a disappointment. Maybe I have just played the vanilla version so much that I missed the point. Things like the Gauntlets of Ogre power only giving +2 to strength? I mean, I get it. but kind of turns a banger magic item into a meh item. In any event, I didn't enjoy it. I loved NWN 1-2 though, so....
