Talk:Untouchable Blade (3.5e Class)

Editing

I added a couple spins to it. People have been wanting to play it in my Pathfinder Campigns so I tweaked it slightly to make them a little more PF friendly, feel free to digregard my changes if it doesn't suit you.

I moved a couple things around to not give them any dead levels. I hate dead levels... I HATE dead levels...

I also gave them the Infinite Deflection Epic Feat at 17th Level usable only if they have a slashing weapon drawn.

Lastly, I gave them Augmented Critical at 20th Level as a final level ability. Figured that should push them over the glass ceiling, make them truly awesome. Also as in PF everyone sans the Cleric gets some 20th Level boost, it fits, and is powerful enough for a 20th level power.

Minor issues

Some stuff that I noticed:

It wasn't clear if Precision Strike adds Dex bonus instead of Str bonus or in addition to it. It's in addition..

Another thing I noticed is that you gave him Sudden Strike. I think you should give him sneak attack instead, to prevent incompatibility with Crippling Strike (they follow the same mechanics so it shouldn't be a problem)

Given the amount of special abilities available and the tendence to stealth, you should nerf the attack bonus to 3/4*level.

I guess that's it, good luck with your class. If you disagree with something I'd love to know why. --ElfsMaster 04:52, 31 January 2008 (MST)

Edited quick step

I like the class even if it isn't balanced.

I filled in the quick step's description to be like the monk's speed increase.

-gd1

Rapiers

They should probably be proficient with these, after all they are a weapon meant to be used for parry and counter fighting styles and favor dexterity over strength.

Halberds vs. Glaives

I think if the classes shtick is blades, then they should be able to use glaives rather than halberds. Glaives being nothing more than swords on sticks.

Rating

Power - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<It is amazingly powerful>>> --98.155.7.183 06:49, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Wording - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<IT is written with eloquence, however the Rogue special abilities need to be re-written to pertain to the SwiftBlade>>> --98.155.7.183 06:49, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<Though it is formatted well, it needs a pic of some sort to really finalize it in my eyes.>>> --98.155.7.183 06:49, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<It is a great concept, but it really is just an amalgamation of many classes combined into one form. Regardless it is a tough cookie though.>>> --98.155.7.183 06:49, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

I'm only going to update the flavor part of this rating since it is clear that the formatting and power rating criteria were misunderstood and the wording is obviously not a five if something is wrong. -- Jota 13:13, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Rating

Power - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<>> --Artix Von Kreiger (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2012 (MST)

Wording - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<>> --Artix Von Kreiger (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2012 (MST)

Formatting - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --Artix Von Kreiger (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2012 (MST)

Flavor - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<It has a nice flair to it that I can see as a real "WotC" class.>>> --Artix Von Kreiger (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2012 (MST)

Rating

Balance - 2/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because --193.205.81.2 07:36, 25 October 2014 (MDT)

Wording - X/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because --193.205.81.2 07:36, 25 October 2014 (MDT)

Formatting - X/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because --193.205.81.2 07:36, 25 October 2014 (MDT)

Flavor - X/5 I give this class a X out of 5 because --193.205.81.2 07:36, 25 October 2014 (MDT)

Is Untoushable Blade a swashbukler variant?--63.142.67.85 18:02, 3 June 2015 (MDT)