Talk:Untouchable Blade (3.5e Class)
From D&D Wiki
 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. (I'm guessing it's instead, or else there would be a problem with weapon finesse and shadow blade adding twice the Dex bonus) Even so, It's a little unbalanced, since it mirrors two feats, one of which can only be taken using the Tome of Battle classes. You might want to make it add only attack and an Improved Precision Strike at a later level (maybe 5th) to add the damage bonus.
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.
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.
Power - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<It is amazingly powerful>>> --188.8.131.52 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>>> --184.108.40.206 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.>>> --220.127.116.11 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.>>> --18.104.22.168 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)
 Nice Job!
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)