Well, D&D and Chess are both games, but that's about where the similarities end.
I did not claim great similarity however Chess was a war game ahem, It was mentioned to demonstrate that games do not need high flux random to be interesting and craps is not much like D&D either but they demonstrate that high end dice impact is not necessarily "exciting" to everyone
I actually played a modified chess with dicing added it had a different flavor but it also was not as good
Bounded Accuracy is one of those game design terms that comes up all the time in these threads,
its why a skill you are trained in is only 4 points higher at endgame than it was early on instead of being like 3e or PF with 20 levels and 4e with close to that, its why random chance has a higher impact than any of your choices, and why there is no room for improving skill. I
It is also why attributes only advance half as much as they did in the previous edition
especially when people try to compare the effectiveness of character classes with each other.
Martial types are kind of dependent on skill for versatility outside of combat and the impact of bounded accuracy is to make the d20 far more impactful on things controlled by it... but its also says that you have a good chance of doing the most extreme thing allowed
I'm not a game designer, so I don't really know a whole lot about it. But I do know enough about statistics to say that if the linear distribution of a single d20 has too much swing, there are options...you could use the optional rules for 3d6 in the DMG, or create your own system (2d10, 5d4...) until you find the curve that feels right for your table.
I have played GURPS games that uses 3D6 (how would that work with advantage??? and disadvantage it sounds contrary to a lot), One negative of that is that you reduce human ability to umm understand/predict the meaning of DC in terms most understand for both DM and Player. Linear odds are surprisingly understandable for most people.
I mean, sure? In D&D that's certainly possible. But here in the real world, spellcasters don't even exist at all...the closest I've ever seen to an actual magic-user in real life was my grandmother: she could cure whooping cough with herbs, and her biscuits were nothing short of divine.
LOL Sure but we are talking about D&D and honestly right now to build a character who feels legendary you basically need a caster or a sympathetic DM creates a highly magic item dependent character for you (see it feels like the DMs character when all /most of your interesting and powerful bits come from his largess and that is to me quite sad.
You remember 3rd Edition, and how it used Skill Points per Level to allow characters to improve their bonuses over the course of their adventuring career? There were also synergy bonuses, competence bonuses, enhancement bonuses, and about 13 other flavors of bonuses to track nearly every circumstance...I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for.
There are people that would like that I am sure but I think classic heroes are more generally competent is something I am more interested in though having more specific skill specializations also has some appeal if they enable at high levels well accomplishing legendary things I still think stalled attribute and skills undermines things quite a bit,
I have only played a few sessions of 3e but I am sure huge numbers of flavors of bonuses is not something I would find interesting.
I don't think the 5E game would be improved by going back to that system, but don't take my word for it. If you ever house-rule them back in, I'd love to see your notes. Personally, I'd rather just play either 5th Edition or 3.5E...not some blend of the two.
The blend does not sound good my current baseline 5e starting point is Level Up which I have actually purchased,