HELP an old timer with D&D 5E (long question but worth the think)

Hi all, I'm an OG DM, started at 12 in 1987 with the 1st edition of D&D, then moved to AD&D 1st edition, then never quite got used to the 2nd edition before leaving TTRPGs behind entirely. Fast forward roughly 25-30 years. I have a son, he's 12 and he's asking about my collection of old books in my office (yes, I still have my 200+ various rule books). I told him it was hard to explain, but promised to show him and his friends next time they come for a sleep over. Soon enough, here I was, DM-ing a short campaign to a handful of noob Pokémons. We had a fun intro adventure, but now I feel like trying out 5E just to see how the game has evolved. I was glad to find out that a lot of cumbersome things were simplified, and much less happy to see that some newer features have the overcomplexity only RPG authors can create. My main pain point is skills, et al . I don't have the time to delve deep into the long read, so I even asked ChatGPT but only got confusing answers. As I understand it, characters have ye olde abilities (STR, DEX, etc.), races, classes, levels and (new) backgrounds. I wish there could just be these 5 parameters and then everything else was labeled skills, either natural (ie swimming or professional use of a weapon, tool or armor) or special (ie elven darkvision), which could then only be obtained via prerequisites (one or several criteria of class, race, ability scores, backgrounds, other skills etc.) and improved with new skill points earned with every level. Alas, no. Here, each of these 5 parameters seems to unlock paths to different types of talents: saving throws, proficiencies, archetypes and sub-classes, skills, feats, features, styles,  specializations (in  weapon / armor / spell / tools), and then some of these lead to other talents, and  mastery  in  each is achieved in a different way, with no clear sight on how they link and operate. I have a hard time navigating these waters. Honestly, I don't see the conceptual difference between a "saving throw against poison" and what could just be a skill of "poison resistance" (you can actually train for that) or replace archetype > fighting style > archery with a simple archery skill training. Races, classes, backgrounds and high abilities could just grant/require specific natural or special skills,  and archetypes would be predefined character types that check the right skills . What do you guys think? For now, if anyone has either: - a graphics (think technology tree from Strategy video games) that shows which parameter leads to what type of talent, which then affects what kind of actions or roll ; - OR a cheat sheet that explains it all in one go ; - OR a full compounded list of all skills, feats & proficiencies with their prerequisites (I think I'm just gonna go down that road), from all books and popular non-official sources... ... I'd be super grateful. Thanks, Frederic

Hi frenchfilm,  Roll20's forums are primarily for getting help with how to use Roll20 rather than how to play any particular game system.  I suggest heading over to the official DnD Discord server, they will be able to answer your questions in detail.  With that said, Saving Throws are baked into the DNA of D&D since the early days. (I've been playing for 4+decades). You may remember them as things like Saving Throw vs: Spell or Magic Staves, Magic Wands, Death Ray or Poison, etc.  What each saving throw is named has changed, what they cover has changed, but the basic concept has not. Roll a d20, check to see if you succeed or not.  Skills: This is simply things like Acrobatics etc. This was first introduced as an optional rule called "Non-weapon proficiencies" of 2nd edition AD&D, then baked into the system in 3rd edition.  There is no skill tree such as in video games. Skills don't belong to trees. Anyone can roll any skill if the task calls for it.  Climbing? That is Athletics. Socializing? That is probably Persuasion (or Intimidation if going that route). The descriptions of what each skill covers are in the rules.  Proficiency is pretty well spelled out in the rules, if you are proficient with it you generally gain a bonus (armor is different), but otherwise you can use just about anything you want even if not proficient (there are exceptions for certain tasks though, those are spelled out in the rules). Skills do not have prerequisites although certain feats might, the feats will spell those out. 

One interesting thing 5e did was spelling out that DMs can ask for skill checks based on any attribute they feel is relevant for the situation. All skill checks are really just attribute checks (i.e. strength/dexterity, etc checks), but if the character has proficiency they get to add their prof bonus. If, for example, the party wizard is attempting a Stealth check to follow someone in a crowded street without being seen and they say they are going to try to use sight lines to their advantage, the DM has the option to allow, say, an Intelligence check for stealth given that they have to analyze and predict the movement of the passersby, rather than the default dexterity-based check. If the wizard was also proficient in stealth, they would make the INT check and add their proficiency bonus. In practice, however, most folks just fall back on the default attributes (dex in this example) for "named skills". Maybe a better example is for tool proficiencies. Building a heavy wooden box with carpentry tool proficiency might be strength-based, but making intricate scrollwork patterns might be dexterity-based. Building a complex cuckoo clock mechanism might be intelligence-based, etc.  All of this is optional, but it is written in a way to give DMs flexibility. Not that they couldn't do this before, but having it spelled out in the book sort of gives the DM "permission". 

When I run games for new players, I show them this video playlist: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoW2CDgztKY&amp;list=PLJmFJXf3BXjwXkNFo_-iwtHb24AuJcXqx" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoW2CDgztKY&amp;list=PLJmFJXf3BXjwXkNFo_-iwtHb24AuJcXqx</a> It goes into every aspect of the game from Player's Perspective, and that person also has videos helpful to learning the mechanics of the game from a GM's perspective.

As someone who learned AD&amp;D and played for a number of years, then took a long pause until picking up 5E about 7 years ago, I can say that despite the differences, I prefer 5E now.&nbsp; AD&amp;D has it's own slate of weird complexity you had to learn (each weapon had different mods to hit different armor types, for example).&nbsp; 5E simplied a lot of that down to roll a d20, add magic mods, and compare to the AC number, plus advantage / disadvantage (roll twice and take better or worse value) for certain circumstances like fighting against a prone opponent or when blind. The basic rules are really simple at heart, although it can take some time before that's obvious. Yes, they did add skills, and Feats, and lots of per-race/class/subclass Features &amp; Traits. But skills are helpful to the DM as a way to conceptualize interactions: trying to talk a shop-keeper into a discount, that's persuasion and some people in the party are better than others (or intimidation, there's often more than one way to do things). There's only a handful of skills to learn, although there are a lot more Feats and Features &amp; Traits, but just keep a computer handy and google those when you need to. That's my primary tool, after the rulebooks (paper rulebooks, but I'm a traditionallist): online search, because there's a huge amount of info out there, including interpretations of rule interactions, descriptions of how to make a "good" build of a certain character type (which can clarify how the various capabilities play against each other). And a lot is optional (everything, really: rule 1 is that the DM makes the rules). You can omit Feats altogether, particularly if running for a group of new players, and introduce them at some later time.&nbsp; And just because there are skills, as DM you can houserule that something works a certain way, rather than trying to figure out which skill you're supposed to apply to a situation. As a player, I find that the class/subclass stuff makes characters more interesting, so even if you really like playing Rangers, you can mix it up and not always play the same set of Features &amp; Traits each time. So, my basic point is that there is complexity, but it's worth spending the time to learn it.&nbsp; In the end, you get a better game for it.&nbsp; But don't let it intimidate you, if something isn't making sense, just pick a way that works for you and your players, and use that. And the complexity isn't really that bad, it's just different from what someone coming from AD&amp;D sees as "normal".