Beginner Tip: Perk selections

[Moondoggie]

Another Beginner Tip post. This time on Perk selections. Its gonna be long, no avoiding it as this is a vast and varied integral part of the game.

Using your perks to stack your modifier deck with bonuses while removing the negatives is one of the easiest ways to minimize those agonizing x0 draws. Let me explain:

When selecting Perks, most perk lists have remove negative cards from your modifier deck. Some only have a few while others have more. Having the ability to remove more is obviously better but all 6 starting classes benefit from this feature.

The modifier deck is the same for all characters and has:
one x0
one -2
five -1
six +0
five +1
one +2
one x2
You have a 35% chance (7 in 20) to draw a negative card (including the fumble).
You have a 35% chance (7 in 20) to draw a bonus damage card (including the crit).
And you have a 30% chance of your attack dealing normal damage (6 in 20).

One of the classes that benefits greatly from removing negative cards is the Tinkerer. The Tinkerer can remove four -1 cards and replace its single -2 card with a +0 card. With just 3 perks, you have removed all but one -1 and your x0 card. Your odds of getting a negative card just went from a 35% chance (7 in 20) to a 12.5% change (2 in 16). Then you can start adding more positive cards in to lower the odds of drawing a negative card even more while increasing your chances at bonus damage at the same time.

Keep in mind, that removing negative cards is beneficial, while removing +0s might not be. An example of this is the Spellweaver. The Spellweaver can take a perk that removes four +0 cards. While you might think this is good initially, its not because you just increased your chances at drawing a negative card. Prior to the removal, you had a 35% (7 in 20) chance at a negative draw. By taking out four +0s you change the chance to 43.7% (7 in 16).

Would the Spellweaver benefit from trying to remove its negative cards like the Tinkerer should? Lets see... the Spellweaver only has one remove perk and 2 replace perks. I have already shown how removing the +0s is a bad option initially so lets look at the replace. She can replace a -1 card with a +1 card and do this twice. So with that perk her odds of drawing a negative card drop from 35% to 20% (5 in 20). But her chances at drawing a positive go up from 35% to 45% (9 in 20) at the same time. And if she decided to remove those +0s after, her negative draw odds go to 31.25% (5 in 16) while her chance at bonus damage goes to 56.2% (9 in 16). Her odds of drawing a negative go back up to almost the starting point but her odds of pulling a bonus damage card are slightly more than 1 in 2. I personally would not choose the higher negative percentage because imo doing less/no damage hurts more than doing more damage helps. In order for the remove four +0 perk to be favorable, you would need to add four +1 or higher cards to take their place. Luckily there is a Add two +1 cards perk that can be taken twice to easily do that.

Using your perks to stack your modifier deck with bonuses while removing the negatives is one of the easiest ways to minimize the agonizing x0 draws.

Brute can remove four -1 cards. I would take the "Ignore Negative Item effects and add two +1 cards" perk first. These three perks alone drop your negative card pull from 35% to 16.6% (3 in 18) while your bonus damage draw goes from 35% to 50% (9 in 18). As with the Spellweaver, I wouldnt take the remove four +0s unless you have added in four bonus damage cards first.

Cragheart cant remove any negative cards, only replace them. After choosing ignore negative scenario effects, you might want to replace three -1 cards with +1 cards. I would then start adding more bonus damage cards before removing the four +0 cards. Craghearts are get stuck with three -1 cards and their -2 card no matter what.

Mindthief can get a very nice modifier deck since it can remove four -1 cards and replace its -2 card. After choosing Ignore negative scenario effects, the Mindthief could remove two -1 cards twice and replace its -2 card with a +0 leaving it with just the x0 and one -1 card. This would lower the chances of drawing a negative card from 35% to 12.5% (2 in 16) and increases the bonus damage draw from 35% to 50% (8 in 16) with just those 4 perk choices.

Scoundrel will want to choose the default ignore negative scenario effects but after that they end up with the best damage deck imo. They can remove four -1 cards, replace the remaining -1 card with a +1 card and replace their -2 with a +0 card. So the only negative they are left with is the unremovable x0 card. Furthermore they can remove four +0 cards and then replace the last two +0 cards with +2 cards. They still get to add four rolling +1 cards after that! This does take 9 perks to achieve but they would have a negative draw of 6.2% (1 in 16) and a bonus damage draw of 87.5% (14 in 16)! Just taking Ignore and remove two -1 cards twice as your first three perks drops the negative draw to 18.75% (3 in 16) and the bonus damage to 43.75% (7 in 16).

Wish this was shorter but its a complicated aspect of the game.

[Bulldozer]

How about the perks that add rolling modifier cards?

[kelteel]

Originally posted by Bulldozer:

How about the perks that add rolling modifier cards?

Those are not that great, because of advantage. If you have advantage and draw a rolling modifier and x0 your attack failed. Without rolling modifiers (and without curses) you can not fail an attack with advantage.

[Mechalibur]

I think it's worth evaluating just how often you expect to have advantage as well as how thin your modifier deck is. In general, I will take stuff like rolling disarm or +1 rolling modifiers, albeit at a low priority compared to other improvements. Some rolling modifiers are so mediocre that I pretty much never add them to my deck, even if they're the only perk selections left (like rolling pull or rolling muddle).

[Moondoggie]

I am not a fan of rolling modifiers because of the reason I think Kelteel meant to say: they give additional chances at drawing a x0 which overrides everything that came before it. If you draw a rolling +1, another rolling +1, another rolling +1, a rolling wound and then a x0 fumble... only the fumble counts and all those rolling cards are wasted. Rolling cards in your deck increase the odds of drawing the x0 higher and higher with each one you add.

Having advantage will negate that only so long as you have advantage. There is only one instance I can think of where you will have continuous advantage. So I dont like rolling cards but I do use certain ones, such as rolling +1 and 2 self heals since those will remove poison/wounds from time to time.

[Mechalibur]

Originally posted by Moondoggie:

I am not a fan of rolling modifiers because of the reason I think Kelteel meant to say: they give additional chances at drawing a x0 which overrides everything that came before it.

I'm not quite sure that's correct. If you don't have advantage, isn't the chance of drawing any individual card the same whether or not you added a rolling modifier? For the sake of argument, let's say a character's modifier deck has 4 cards: Null, -1, +1, and x2. They have a 25% chance of drawing each card. Now let's add a rolling +1. There's now a 20% chance of drawing a null as your first card, as well as a 5% chance of drawing a rolling +1, then a null. Altogether, your chance of drawing a null is still 25%, right?

[Moondoggie]

Originally posted by Mechalibur:

I'm not quite sure that's correct. If you don't have advantage, isn't the chance of drawing any individual card the same whether or not you added a rolling modifier? For the sake of argument, let's say a character's modifier deck has 4 cards: Null, -1, +1, and x2. They have a 25% chance of drawing each card. Now let's add a rolling +1. There's now a 20% chance of drawing a null as your first card, as well as a 5% chance of drawing a rolling +1, then a null. Altogether, your chance of drawing a null is still 25%, right?

So you had 5 cards and a therefore a 20% (1 in 5) chance of drawing the null. You draw a rolling +1 and have to draw another card. Now you have a 25% (1 in 4) chance of drawing the null. I would prefer to only have 1 chance at a null instead of multiple chances in a turn. I dont feel the +1 damage is worth the additional risk of no damage at all. I have no problem with people going for it, I just like to hedge my bets.

[Mechalibur]

Originally posted by Moondoggie:

Originally posted by Mechalibur:

I'm not quite sure that's correct. If you don't have advantage, isn't the chance of drawing any individual card the same whether or not you added a rolling modifier? For the sake of argument, let's say a character's modifier deck has 4 cards: Null, -1, +1, and x2. They have a 25% chance of drawing each card. Now let's add a rolling +1. There's now a 20% chance of drawing a null as your first card, as well as a 5% chance of drawing a rolling +1, then a null. Altogether, your chance of drawing a null is still 25%, right?

So you had 5 cards and a therefore a 20% (1 in 5) chance of drawing the null. You draw a rolling +1 and have to draw another card. Now you have a 25% (1 in 4) chance of drawing the null. I would prefer to only have 1 chance at a null instead of multiple chances in a turn. I dont feel the +1 damage is worth the additional risk of no damage at all. I have no problem with people going for it, I just like to hedge my bets.

I don't think you're understanding me. There is no extra risk. You are exactly as likely to draw a null whether you have the +1 rolling or not. If you didn't have the rolling +1, your chance to draw a null would have been 25% anyway.

The extra risk only comes when you have advantage.

[Mechalibur]

Actually, just to make sure we're on the same page, are you talking about the opportunity cost (adding a positive modifier vs a rolling modifier)? Because you're correct if so. But if we're just looking at adding a rolling modifier vs not adding one in a vacuum, your chance to draw a null isn't increased unless you have advantage.

[Moondoggie]

1 draw means you have once chance at drawing the null.
2 draws means you have two chances at drawing the null. More chances at a negative draw is more risk.

[ExperimentalGamer]

I'm reminded of the Monty Hall problem here. Mechalibur's math holds up a lot better than your intuition does. Rolling mods are never a drawback when you're rolling straight without advantage or disadvantage (barring very niche edge cases where you wind up creating an element that an enemy uses), and their way of diluting advantage/disadvantage does work to your benefit if you're disadvantaged for whatever reason.

Rolling mods do also have a reduced but still present benefit when rolling with advantage. You could pull a rolling mod on your second roll and that's pure gravy. However they do introduce a chance to null out your attack when there wasn't one before, which is the core of a lot of "rolling mods ruin advantage" topics. I do recommend removing negatives first and adding high impact terminal mods second. (With ignoring negative item effects/scenario effects at the player's discretion.) After that, though, there are many sexy rolling mods that are absolutely worth taking.

Also, rolling mods do still take effect even if they do cause a null. This matters less for +1s (that still get nulled out by the x0) and low impact ones like pushes or pulls. A rolling stun or disarm will still take effect, and the impact it has even on a null makes them worth adding to your deck.

[SaltyTaro]

Originally posted by Moondoggie:

1 draw means you have once chance at drawing the null.
2 draws means you have two chances at drawing the null. More chances at a negative draw is more risk.

You don't have more chances at a negative draw though. Let's say you have a x0 and a x2, you draw 1 card and it's either a x0 or a x2. Now add 10 rolling +1, even if you draw all 10 +1 cards, you still have to land on the x0 or the x2, so you can draw 11 cards and it's still a 1 in 2 chance of hitting the x0.

[Moondoggie]

Your chance of getting the x0 is 1 in 12 on the first draw not 1 in 2. The chance of pulling it increases as you draw more rollings.

[Manslayer]

Originally posted by Moondoggie:

Your chance of getting the x0 is 1 in 12 on the first draw not 1 in 2. The chance of pulling it increases as you draw more rollings.

Except rolling always draw so if there are 10 rolling cards and 2 x0 and 1 x2 you still have a 1 in 2 of drawing the x0 and 1 in 2 of drawing a x2. This is because every rolling auto draws. Basically they don't exist in normal attacks as a % increase or decrease.

[ExperimentalGamer]

Originally posted by Moondoggie:

Your chance of getting the x0 is 1 in 12 on the first draw not 1 in 2. The chance of pulling it increases as you draw more rollings.

Technically true, but the end result is the same as if the rolling mods were never there in the first place. If you have a deck with twelve nonrolling cards in it, you have the same chance of a null whether you have two or zero or ten rolling cards in it. (Assuming no advantage/disadvantage.)

Furthermore, it's very possible to protect yourself against both the natural null and any curses that get thrown into your deck by pumping in extra terminal cards into it. Heavy armors without the armor perk add extra -1s to your deck, but those -1s are not x0s and doing one point less damage is better than completely whiffing. The fact that this is not a recommended strategy shows that sometimes total nullphobia is not the best thing to build for.

[SaltyTaro]

Originally posted by Moondoggie:

Your chance of getting the x0 is 1 in 12 on the first draw not 1 in 2. The chance of pulling it increases as you draw more rollings.

By that logic the chance of drawing the x2 increases by the exact same amount so there is not MORE chance of drawing the x0, it's always the exact same chance.