Quote Originally Posted by DanyBallon View Post
5e works somehow like this, yet differently.

i.e.
DM describe a situation where the characters needs to get by the guard.
Player: I'd like to sweet talk the guard into letting me pass
DM: ok, that would be a Charisma ability check, and if proficient in Persuasion, you may add your proficiency bonus as well.

or

DM describe the exact same situation
Player: Grog is not to suave but would like to intimidate the guard convincing him that it would be in its best interest to let them pass.
DM: ok, this would be a Charisma ability check...
Player: If Grog take a menacing stance, showing off is muscle, would a Str check be appropriate?
DM: Sure! you can add your proficiency bonus to your Strength check if you are proficient in Intimidation.

In 5e, all skill checks are ability checks and when relevant, proficiency in a skill may let you add your proficiency bonus to the roll.
Yeah, 5e works similar but sadly the devs bogged it down with a layer of rules that goes against their "vague" skill system (simple, vague, rules-light, whatever).

They seem to have done this a lot in 5e. They are going toward one ideology but try to have their cake and eat it too. Which causes 5e to want to be a rules-light game, but it isn't.

The skill system would be the easiest way to make a part of the game truly rules light (vague, simple, etc..).