As in the title, I would like to know how to blind roll to the DM without me seeing the result of the roll(for example, my stealth check). I know I can set my DM to see the roll when I rightclick on the appropriate skill but I also see the result. Is there a way to toggle this off?
The question is why you don't want even the DM to know the check result? Depending on you play, you can easily achieve it the following way;
In person,: Throw the d20 away from you. Go look it up when you want to know the check result.
Online: Make the Stealth check multiple times without looking at the screen so that it's high enought in chatlog to disappear from view. Scroll up when you want to know the check result.
...I would like to know how to blind roll to the DM without me seeing the result of the roll...
My emphasis. It's a common method of play for rolls that could lead to metagaming if the results were known to the player - like perception checks (oh, I rolled low, I may have missed something...) or stealth checks (oh, I rolled low, maybe I should go back and try something else instead).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
My suggestion still works for a player that would like to make a check without himself knowing the result if the goal is to not see your d20 roll, look away while making multiple whisper roll to DM, chatlog only contain a number of entries visible without scrolling up to see the rest of them.
Thanks for the advice. I meant for online with DnD beyond. Currently the only way I can think of is: rolling, then tabbing out of my character screen so I dont see the game log. When I tab back in it does display the number. Foundry has an option to do blind rolls to the DM where the player won't see their result, exactly for the reasons mentioned by Linklite. I thought there was a way to do it on DnD beyond as well.
The roll multiple times method suggested by Plaguescarred is another option, but was avoiding cluttering the gamelog with multiple rolls. Hopefully it becomes a function in future!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As in the title, I would like to know how to blind roll to the DM without me seeing the result of the roll(for example, my stealth check). I know I can set my DM to see the roll when I rightclick on the appropriate skill but I also see the result. Is there a way to toggle this off?
The question is why you don't want even the DM to know the check result? Depending on you play, you can easily achieve it the following way;
In person,: Throw the d20 away from you. Go look it up when you want to know the check result.
Online: Make the Stealth check multiple times without looking at the screen so that it's high enought in chatlog to disappear from view. Scroll up when you want to know the check result.
That's not what they're asking:
My emphasis. It's a common method of play for rolls that could lead to metagaming if the results were known to the player - like perception checks (oh, I rolled low, I may have missed something...) or stealth checks (oh, I rolled low, maybe I should go back and try something else instead).
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Thanks for the advice. I meant for online with DnD beyond. Currently the only way I can think of is: rolling, then tabbing out of my character screen so I dont see the game log. When I tab back in it does display the number. Foundry has an option to do blind rolls to the DM where the player won't see their result, exactly for the reasons mentioned by Linklite. I thought there was a way to do it on DnD beyond as well.
The roll multiple times method suggested by Plaguescarred is another option, but was avoiding cluttering the gamelog with multiple rolls. Hopefully it becomes a function in future!