CapnZapp
Legend
Yes.I currently have a 12th level rogue that almost never has to roll Stealth because none of the monsters can see him (minimum Stealth check of 23, not considering -5 for Dim Light). Also, again you can also have a single roll for all monsters, which removes the statistical deviation.
The overall problem is that heroes seem overpowered in all respects.
I would much rather play a D&D where monsters are given more competitive skills overall.
Better at stealth (compared to heroes) and better at perception too (compared to heroes).
Obviously one and the same monster does not need to have both Stealth and Perception, and it is completely alright to keep many monsters with neither.
What irks me is the general mediocrity. There are too few monsters good at Stealth, especially monsters that SHOULD be good at stealth. There are too few monsters good at Perception. There are too few monsters good at both.
The rules seem to be content with a world where 10 (+0) is assumed to be standard within a party, as it is among monsters.
But most parties doesn't work like that. Most parties will contain at least one best-in-class character for each vital skill. The result is that if taken as a single entity, a "party" will outclass almost everything else.
It's just a way of playing on "easy mode" I don't care for.
Do note I'm talking about "group skills" where the worst of the "attackers" need to beat the best of the "defenders".
In a situation where the heroes climb or swim, and where everybody floats or sinks on their own result, there is no such "party" or group effect, and the rules work much better.