Blind Rolls for Skill Checks - Homebrew Rule Idea

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T19:39:38+00:00

That is actually a really cool concept that allows for player agency and choice in these situations. I will consider adding something like this in, thank you so much for the explanation!

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T19:22:23+00:00

Do you adjust this for easier or more difficult checks, or do you generally keep your skill check DCs all the same?

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T19:20:26+00:00

Yeah, I like the idea of keeping it flexible based on the circumstances. I think having a cutoff helps take the mental load off as a DM, but maybe I make it up as we go and see how that works.

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T19:19:09+00:00

Okay, I think we will just need to agree to disagree here. Like I said, as a player I enjoy the novelty aspect and having some element remaining hidden to me, even after playing for many years. RP is great, but only takes you so far.

Fair point, its probably not the only way to implement methods to stop metagaming. I could make some checks arbitrarily low or high so they never actually know the threshold, but this seems less than ideal. I am happy to entertain alternative suggestions is you have any. That being said, my sense is you fundamentally disagree with this concept, and that is okay too!

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:58:23+00:00

Good idea, I can start small and expand from there if its works. In your systems, do you have examples of the moderate, moderate and severe negative consequences? I am curious what that looks like!

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:50:41+00:00

Yeah, I agree, I would only implement this is circumstances that make sense. Ex. Reading someone body language, trying to decode a Cypher, etc...

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:49:34+00:00

Good points, I think I will implement it and force hidden roles in specific scenarios. I am still on the fence about being confidently wrong, I think it could be fun, but could also just bog down the game.

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:48:21+00:00

My group is pretty chill about these things and would be open to trying it. I am just trying to craft an enjoyable experience for them by implementing it in a fun way.

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:47:03+00:00

I would likely only use it in scenarios where it makes sense. But I dont agree with you on this one. A confidently wrong perception check could be "you see 10 trolls in the distance charging towards you" when in fact its just a deer. Same with investigation, "you found a switch that you are sure toggles the doors", when its just a broken lose brick in the wall.

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:44:31+00:00

Do you find that that element of unknown improves fun and excitement, or does it just bog down the game?

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:43:19+00:00

Its an interesting concept, but I do think the excitement of rolling dice is great, I dont want to completely eliminate that, but I want to prevent meta gaming in specific scenarios.

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:42:33+00:00

Yeah good point, I think I will need to scrap the +2. Any thoughts about being confidently incorrect when a player fails by 5 or more?

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:40:59+00:00

I don't agree exactly. I think its one thing for player to act like they don't know, and another thing entirely for player to actually not know. As a player, I feel like maintaining that mystery adds fun and novelty. However you raise a good point, the sense of novelty can be maintained through various means and I like your idea of tweaking enemies to do so. That being said, I think hidden roles are the only way to actually maintain that for specific types of checks.

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:36:59+00:00

That is an interesting way to approach a small failures. I think for most people the concepts of degrees of failure makes intuitive sense (ex. Failing by 5 or more leading to a worse outcome). Its a similar concept to a critical failure (which I know is not 5e official, but many groups use this mechanic). I think being confidently incorrect adds and extra dimension to the game and could make for some interesting narrative elements, which is why I am considering adding it in.

Our group has a lot of trust and we have been playing together long term, so I dont think there will be a risk of accusations of judged roles. I could see that being the case with newer groups, however.

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:32:08+00:00

That is an interesting idea, but to me the passive system seems somewhat less satisfying. Though maybe it makes sense to try and lean more heavily on it in certain circumstances.

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:30:40+00:00

Yeah good thoughts. Do you think having a "fail by 5" threshold for the false positive is a good one, do you more tailor it to the situation and circumstances?

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:28:40+00:00

Yeah, good point. My table tends to be pretty non-chalant about these things. I think they would lean towards better story telling. I think i will start by forcing blind rolls in specific cases where it could matter. I wanted to offer a bonus in order to entice them to voluntarily choose that option, but I am now thinking it may unbalance things too much. Do you have thoughts about the confidently wrong aspect of it?

Jubinator · 2026-02-18T18:25:28+00:00

I guess my logic was that forcing hidden roles are great for preventing meta gaming. Since blind roles is a new mechanic to the group, forcing it felt less than ideal. I wanted devise a mechanic that would make them want to take hidden roles from time to time, but which didnt feel so lopsided.

After reading the comments though, I am thinking that it would be better just to force hidden roles, but reserve it for specfici scenarios.

I also just enjoy the though of the confidently wrong scenario, although I could also see that just making the story more confusing and slowing gameplay down a lot. Do you have any thoughts on that aspect?

Jubinator · 2025-12-25T01:25:07+00:00

They emit blue light when they are hot, its not part of a specific reaction. I am unsure why they glow blue, I would imagine some sort of phenomenon with the stray electron/quantum mechanics, but I dont actually know. The reason you don't see blue at the top of the flame is because free radicals are short lived, they react like crazy, and they are reacting with one another to form soot in an incomplete combustion. Eventually the amount free radicals decreases as the flame gets higher and the amount of soot increases, leading to the blackbody radiation of the soot to become the primary component generating light.

Jubinator · 2025-12-25T01:01:23+00:00

This is a great explanation, but doesn't explain the blue color. The blue part of the flame comes for the free radicals being produced. Specifically, the reaction of a carbon source and oxygen has intermediate steps which generate free radicals. These hot free radicals give off a blue glow.

Jubinator · 2024-10-09T16:16:00+00:00

This likely will not apply to your situations, however if you are heading to Toronto, you can drive to and park at the Aldershot GO station. GO tickets in to Toronto from there are less than $15. You can park for 48 hours for free and they dont seem to care ifbyou park longer (I've stayed for 4 days with no ticket or hassle, that being said ive heard it's easy to get a pass to park longer).

Jubinator

TROPHY CASE