Is Dueling ever worth it for a Guardian?

[Klorox]

I'm playing a Scout 4/Guardian 16 and I'm wondering if Dueling might just be worth it. I will be pretty vulnerable on Taris, and the feat would help.

But I don't want to waste any feats either, because I know there is a limit to them and I want a butt-kickin' warrior when I become a Jedi.

[Caden]

Dueling is worth it, if you plan to use a single lightsaber. I wouldn't get Dueling early on, if you plan to get Two-weapon Fighting later, though. If you are looking for features to increase your survivability, try getting the Toughness and Improved Toughness feats. You can get both by level 4. At least Toughness will help you out later in the game, when you plan to start using Two-weapon Fighting, unlike Dueling.

I also suggest sitting back and using a single blaster. You will likely be missing a lot if you use two, but see what works best for you. Let Carth run up to the enemy with melee weapons, so they focus their attacks on him. Use energy shields if enemies are shooting at you. I think you will be fine if you do that.

This is partly why I suggest a 7/13 build when creating a character, but I suppose we've all tried a 4/16 type of build at least once.

[Lantzen]

7/13:laugh:

I usaly do 2/18

And now back to topic. It's not worth it if you get two-weapon later on like Caden said, but if you gonna use singelhanded there no reason not to

[shift244]

Numerically, you would be superior with two weapon fighting as a Guardian. You already have a high Attack bonus from your classes so the little that Dueling adds are not needed. The Defense bonuses are nice, but nothing you really need either compared to the high damage output you would be having from two weapon fighting.

If you are having trouble surviving Taris, try using grenades and keep yourself moving.

[Nightmare]

Generally speaking, from a powergaming perspective, Dueling isn't as good as dual wielding. You'll do more damage and have more attacks naturally, and the bonus to attack and defence that Dueling gives is quite negligible at later stages of the game.

But, for another perspective...all the best Jedi use single sabers.

[potatoe]

Generally, dueling is better against really tough opponents and two weapon fighting is better to hack and slash through the weaker opponents since the attack bonus difference is 5.

If you are a strength based guardian two-weapon fighting is a good choice. If you play something dex based or sentinel/consular, dueling is often a better idea.

[QUOTE=Nightmare]Generally speaking, from a powergaming perspective, Dueling isn't as good as dual wielding. You'll do more damage and have more attacks naturally, and the bonus to attack and defence that Dueling gives is quite negligible at later stages of the game.
[/QUOTE]
I had a pretty tough time with a scoundrel/sentinel on difficult setting. And that was with mantel of the force/heart of the guardian pimped sabers.

+5 Attack bonus compared to dual wielding is not negligible imo. It's similar to having a +10 strength difference.

[Caden]

Depending on which stat is higher, the game will use either strength or dexterity to calculate your chance to hit with lightsabers. It won't use both, just whichever stat is higher. So a dex based character isn't going to have a lower chance to hit than a str based character. Just increase one stat, dex or str, and ignore the other and you should have a really high chance to hit. Granted it is -5, compared to a single-lightsaber with the dueling feature, but it should still come out to you dealing more damage with two weapons.

[Nightmare]

Generally, dueling is better against really tough opponents and two weapon fighting is better to hack and slash through the weaker opponents since the attack bonus difference is 5.

If you are a strength based guardian two-weapon fighting is a good choice. If you play something dex based or sentinel/consular, dueling is often a better idea.

I had a pretty tough time with a scoundrel/sentinel on difficult setting. And that was with mantel of the force/heart of the guardian pimped sabers.

+5 Attack bonus compared to dual wielding is not negligible imo. It's similar to having a +10 strength difference.

Maybe...I just didn't find any portion of the combat in this game to be hard, even on difficult, especially near the end. When a character has something like a +26 to attack, having 5 more doesn't really do much.

[Greg.]

Maybe...I just didn't find any portion of the combat in this game to be hard, even on difficult, especially near the end. When a character has something like a +26 to attack, having 5 more doesn't really do much.

+5 equates to 25%...

[Cuchulain82]

Dueling is worth it, if you plan to use a single lightsaber.

^^^He's right. It also depends on whether or not you're going to go with flurry or crit hit. Two weapon fighting generally works with flurry, and dueling with crit hit. Dan Simpson goes into great length on his KOTOR Guide about this dilemma- you should check it out.

Personally, I usually went with flurry+two weapon, because as a scout flurry was free.

[Caden]

+5 equates to 25%...

It's not really. Your chance to land a hit is detemined by a random number between 1 and 20 being generated and your attack modifier being added to that. If the result is higher than your enemy's defence, you hit them.

With a 26 attack modifier, you roll a 27-46 attack, 36 on averarge. Which is usually higher than your enemy's defense. I don't think +5 attack makes that much of a difference--if any--in the latter part of the game.

I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the difference between 31 attack and 26 attack is a 25% chance to hit.

[potatoe]

Depending on which stat is higher, the game will use either strength or dexterity to calculate your chance to hit with lightsabers. It won't use both, just whichever stat is higher. So a dex based character isn't going to have a lower chance to hit than a str based character. Just increase one stat, dex or str, and ignore the other and you should have a really high chance to hit. Granted it is -5, compared to a single-lightsaber with the dueling feature, but it should still come out to you dealing more damage with two weapons.

Are you sure?
The manual says nothing of this and in Kotor 2 there's a feat that lets you use dex to calculate your attack.

^^^He's right. It also depends on whether or not you're going to go with flurry or crit hit. Two weapon fighting generally works with flurry, and dueling with crit hit. Dan Simpson goes into great length on his KOTOR Guide about this dilemma- you should check it out.

Personally, I usually went with flurry+two weapon, because as a scout flurry was free.

Hmm. I personally think critical hit isn't worth it with one weapon. See, you have a chance to get double damage if you hit and roll critical. Why not have an extra attack in the first place?

With a 26 attack modifier, you roll a 27-46 attack, 36 on averarge. Which is usually higher than your enemy's defense. I don't think +5 attack makes that much of a difference--if any--in the latter part of the game.

Well, it did for me.
Whenever I went after some boss, if terentatek or Malak or whatever I had to reload a few times and sometimes go mad with shields and stims to even have a chance.

[Caden]

Are you sure?
The manual says nothing of this and in Kotor 2 there's a feat that lets you use dex to calculate your attack.

Yeah, unfortunately, it is not mentioned anywhere in the manual or game, and in Kotor 2 they made it so that you had to pick the feature, but I assure you that it is a passive feature in the first Kotor. A person with low str and high dex will see that that when they increase their dex, that their attack modifier goes up as well. Plenty of faqs on this game confirm it.

Hmm. I personally think critical hit isn't worth it with one weapon. See, you have a chance to get double damage if you hit and roll critical. Why not have an extra attack in the first place?

Here is why: The force power Master Speed adds two swings to your attack. A person with a single lightsaber will have 3 swings all together. Let's say that each of those swings does 30 damage. Critical Strike will add a 40% chance to deal double damage with each of those swings. If we add a 40% to the average damage of each swing, that 30 becomes 42. 42x3 equals out to 126 damage per attack. Whereas Flurry just adds one extra swing. 30x4 =120. Critical Strike does a few more points of damage, but the main difference is that you recieve a defense penalty and chance to stun the enemy when using Critical Strike, but not when using Flurry.

Well, it did for me.
Whenever I went after some boss, if terentatek or Malak or whatever I had to reload a few times and sometimes go mad with shields and stims to even have a chance.

That is a reasonable argument. Certain bosses are likely to have a higher defense than your average enemy, but I think in the end, a person with a higher attack modifier that uses 1 blade does the same damage as a person with a slightly lower attack modifier and 2 blades.

[Cuchulain82]

Here is why: The force power Master Speed adds two swings to your attack. A person with a single lightsaber will have 3 swings all together. Let's say that each of those swings does 30 damage. Critical Strike will add a 40% chance to deal double damage with each of those swings. If we add a 40% to the average damage of each swing, that 30 becomes 42. 42x3 equals out to 126 damage per attack. Whereas Flurry just adds one extra swing. 30x4 =120. Critical Strike does a few more points of damage, but the main difference is that you recieve a defense penalty and chance to stun the enemy when using Critical Strike, but not when using Flurry.

One other reason caden didn't mention- you can construct your saber to be a crit hit monster, adding to stun time, damage per crit, etc.

More than anything, it's just a different way of playing. I mean, the game is how old at this point? Trying different types of characters is a good thing.

[Greg.]

I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the difference between 31 attack and 26 attack is a 25% chance to hit.

It's the nature of the d20 system.

If you have +10 to attack, and your opponents AC is 21, you need an 11 to hit and so you hit 50% of the time. If you have +15 to attack, you need 6 to hit, and so hit 15/20 times = 75%

See where I'm coming from?

[potatoe]

Yeah, unfortunately, it is not mentioned anywhere in the manual or game, and in Kotor 2 they made it so that you had to pick the feature, but I assure you that it is a passive feature in the first Kotor. A person with low str and high dex will see that that when they increase their dex, that their attack modifier goes up as well. Plenty of faqs on this game confirm it.

Thanks. I didn't know this, since I never used FAQs, and always took manual info for granted in my run-throughs.

The 6 extra-damage is pretty much negated through the fact that you need to use Nextor Crystal.

And if you are opting for the stun you're going to use critical strike with two-weapon fighting anyway to get an extra chance to critical.

[Caden]

The 6 extra damage is not negated through that fact, because you won't be using nextor. You will be using solari and opila. That creates the best damage combo when using critical strike. And it would be more damaging than any crystal combination on a single blade when using flurry.

You would do marginally more damage with critical strike than flurry on a single blade, but you also get a defense penalty and a chance to stun. That's the difference.

I also don't think the number of swings or weapons you are using effects your chance to stun when using critical strike. The stun rolls only once per attack.

It's the nature of the d20 system.

If you have +10 to attack, and your opponents AC is 21, you need an 11 to hit and so you hit 50% of the time. If you have +15 to attack, you need 6 to hit, and so hit 15/20 times = 75%

See where I'm coming from?

I where you are coming from, but here's the problem: If your opponent has an AC of 21 and you have +26 to attack, you are going to land every hit, no matter what. +5 more to your attack would add exactly 0% to your chance to hit, because you already have a 100% chance to hit. Your math depends on a very specific numbers that would vary in every encounter. Your particular math depends on the defender having a high defense and the attacker have a low attack. Also, 25% is 1/2 of 50%. Going from 50% to 75% means you have a 50% higher chance of landing a hit, not merely 25%.

[Greg.]

I where you are coming from, but here's the problem: If your opponent has an AC of 21 and you have +26 to attack, you are going to land every hit, no matter what. +5 more to your attack would add exactly 0% to your chance to hit, because you already have a 100% chance to hit. Your math depends on a very specific numbers that would vary in every encounter. Your particular math depends on the defender having a high defense and the attacker have a low attack. Also, 25% is 1/2 of 50%. Going from 50% to 75% means you have a 50% higher chance of landing a hit, not merely 25%.

Assuming that the game levels opponents at the same rate as you level (which should happen, and I'm fairly sure it does), then this should be the case. I'm not sure about the stats.