| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now that single classed characters are more viable than ever, we hardly ever see multi-classed characters any more. Giving up the higher level goodies and abilities that scale with levels are just too good to pass up. Maybe that's a good thing, because god knows we don't want things to become like late 3.5 where taking a whole slew of classes and prestige classes was the key to success.
However, if Paizo does things carefully, we could see a whole new world of original character concepts come to life. I loved the "Ascetic" feats the Complete books from 3.5 brought us, which allowed monk unarmed damage and another class's ability to scale alongside each other as you took levels from both classes. I'd love to see something in that vein again and I'm sure other people would too.
I don't mind characters that multi-class, but I'm hoping there's not a lot of additional material making htem more viable. I'm not even thrilled with some of the prestige classes that come out and I think that if you want the ability to do more than one role, then you whould take the penalty of multiclassing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the way they do it now. You can multiclass for diversity or stay in one class for alot of power in your given field. Pathfinder does multiclass better than anyone.
|
Yep, I'm perfectly fine with how multi-classing works now. I'm working right now on an Inquisitor with two levels of Archivist Bard, plus a string of feats that help me excel at a certain combat mechanic with the help of a subdomain. It fits the character concept I've got in my head. More feats that will help customize are coming, if that is what you are waiting for. We DO have two Ultimate hardback books on the way just this year alone.
I'm very happy that Pathfinder discourages the heavy kind of multi-classing that was so prevalent with optimizers in 3.5. I really wouldn't like to see these kinds of feats again.
I did enjoy the Dragon articles (in the 3.0 era) where character concepts were built around multi-classing.
Cheers
Mark
Personally, I prefer the approach that Paizo has taken: primarily archetypes and/or alternate versions of classes instead of tons of similar base classes and prestige classes (i.e., sandman bard instead of bard/rogue, ninja rogue instead of monk/rogue, etc.); I also tended to use the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, as well. However, there are still some concepts that are difficult to pull off mechanically without multiclassing/prestige classes/new base classes (the APG base classes, for example).
I think there could be a bit more support for multiclassing, but the Paizo staff seems to be filling in some of the gaps (i.e., holy vindicator, nature warden, rage prophet, etc. in the APG). With Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, I expect to see even more of the gaps filled in (either with archetypes, alternate versions of classes, or a handful of prestige classes); they also seem to be taking a "whole system" view when designing new options, so I don't expect too much overlap (or 20+ different versions of one concept).
|
|
Support for multi-classing would be great. Overall I greatly enjoy Pathfinder, but with character creation I much preferred the more toolset oriented systems like SW Saga and ToB, then the more predefined paths of Pathfinder. Though Pathfinder has the ability to multi-class, its velvet glove approach to keeping PCs in a predetermined direction gets a bit grating.
........
Funny story. . . I have this Cleric of Shar, first built during 2nd edition, converted nicely (and improved) in 3.0 and 3.5 . . . could not convert it to 4e or Pathfinder(without giving up the point or the fun). . . but could to SW Saga. Luckily 3.5 rules are easily adapted to Pathfinder.So yeah, something to compensate for all the bonuses which have been given to single class would be nice. Something which encourages the player build the character the player wants to build, rather then one already laid out for them would be great.
I agree with ya here about Saga. It's a great system, especially with the last few books that were released. I think what made my characters shine more were the way that the talent trees were constructed. Build a character concept from talent/ability trees is what defines and shapes my characters the most.
The thing I'd like to keep in mind is that multiclassing needs to be somewhat flexible -- the rage prophet and the battle herald are both "you must have _this_ exact combination of classes to play"; they would be more useful if they weren't so obviously focused on bard/cavalier or barbarian/oracle combos. Something like "martial/skill" or "divine/martial" combos would allow players somewhat more flexibility in entering the class.
I am not sure I agree with you guys ;) It works great for all my cohorts! I love the leadership feat and I definitely do not want my cohorts to be more powerful than me so I multiclass them ;) My main characters are all single class cookie cutters because thats the way I roll ;)
The thing I'd like to keep in mind is that multiclassing needs to be somewhat flexible -- the rage prophet and the battle herald are both "you must have _this_ exact combination of classes to play" ...
This is the point of contention, though. It depends on whether you consider uniqueness or quirkiness to be things that a character should "pay" for by giving up power/utility.
This might be an interesting niche for a product designed for unusual parties. What do you do when nobody wants to play the cleric? If you can convince someone to take a level dip and then a feat so their <fighter/rogue/wizard> levels stack with that cleric level for channel, that would make for an interesting party.
What I'm saying is that the multiclass feats that existed in 3.5e could be used for heavy optimization, but they could also be used to let a party fill a role in unusual ways.
I'd love to see a book of balanced ways to lift parts of core classes and drop them into other classes.
|
I'm a big fan of the old 3.5 multiclass advancement feats.
That said, I'm a bit worried that they might be too powerful with the new individually stronger PFRPG classes.
Perhaps something like...
Savage Thug
Your rogue levels count as barbarian levels for determining which rage powers you qualify for and the effects of your rage powers. Your barbarian levels count as rogue levels for determining which rogue tricks you qualify for and the effects of your rogue tricks.
...might be okay.
Anything that advances a class's primary gimmick (sneak attack, rage, weapon training, etc) would probably be too much.
I've always been a big fan of the Paladin/Sorcerer multiclass. For me it was the holy warrior with tainted power. But I find this combo a lot harder to pull of in Pathfinder than it was in 3.5 because of a lack of both multiclass support of a prestige class designed for such a set up. With the bloodlines of Pathfinder I think it would be even more interesting concept. Your a Paladin who finds out he had a Lich, Demon, or Red Dragon ancestor and now you have some of there power.
In the meantime, you can just load up on the 'your class level +4' items like the monk's robe and sash of the war champ. This allows you multiclass and still sort of scale with the class's main abilities for a few levels.
I'm also a fan of the levels count feats from 3.5. They encourage more variety.
and +1 to tonyz. I was psyched when I realized witch could do Arcane Trickster (with the minor magic talent) because it brought the number of trickster varieties up. I don't really see any more than 1 battle herald variety. T_T
I've always been a big fan of the Paladin/Sorcerer multiclass. For me it was the holy warrior with tainted power. But I find this combo a lot harder to pull of in Pathfinder than it was in 3.5 because of a lack of both multiclass support of a prestige class designed for such a set up. With the bloodlines of Pathfinder I think it would be even more interesting concept. Your a Paladin who finds out he had a Lich, Demon, or Red Dragon ancestor and now you have some of there power.
Paladin/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple is a combo ive seen thrown around alot. And the Dragon disciple can be tweaked by house-rules for other bloodlines like abyssal as well.
|
In the meantime, you can just load up on the 'your class level +4' items like the monk's robe and sash of the war champ. This allows you multiclass and still sort of scale with the class's main abilities for a few levels.
I'm also a fan of the levels count feats from 3.5. They encourage more variety.
and +1 to tonyz. I was psyched when I realized witch could do Arcane Trickster (with the minor magic talent) because it brought the number of trickster varieties up. I don't really see any more than 1 battle herald variety. T_T
Actually, I thought about doing this exact thing quite some time ago, and I came here to ask about it. The unanimous answer was that Minor Magic Talent was a spell-like ability, and the class requirements state that you need to cast Mage Hand as a Spell. I don't see a problem house-ruling it or anything, but RAW it actually doesn't work.
I was psyched when I realized witch could do Arcane Trickster (with the minor magic talent) because it brought the number of trickster varieties up. I don't really see any more than 1 battle herald variety. T_T
How did you get around the requirement of having to be able to cast 2nd level spells?
I find that this is one failing of the Pathfinder system. In trying to make single classing more attractive the designers went too far and made the choice to multi-class or play a prestige class largely unpalatable. It's hard enough trying to blend two classes' abilities without falling behind one's single-classes compatriots without further subtracting all of the little perks from which single-classed characters benefit. It's a lonely uphill battle.
Actually, I thought about doing this exact thing quite some time ago, and I came here to ask about it. The unanimous answer was that Minor Magic Talent was a spell-like ability, and the class requirements state that you need to cast Mage Hand as a Spell. I don't see a problem house-ruling it or anything, but RAW it actually doesn't work.In the meantime, you can just load up on the 'your class level +4' items like the monk's robe and sash of the war champ. This allows you multiclass and still sort of scale with the class's main abilities for a few levels.
I'm also a fan of the levels count feats from 3.5. They encourage more variety.
and +1 to tonyz. I was psyched when I realized witch could do Arcane Trickster (with the minor magic talent) because it brought the number of trickster varieties up. I don't really see any more than 1 battle herald variety. T_T
Sad. I must go re-read the thread. I was under the impression that it was OK.
Minor Magic (Sp): A rogue with this talent gains the ability to cast a 0-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. This spell can be cast three times a day as a spell-like ability. The caster level for this ability is equal to the rogue's level. The save DC for this spell is 10 + the rogue's Intelligence modifier. The rogue must have an Intelligence of at least 10 to select this talent.
AT only says you need to be able to cast it, not prepare it. Or maybe my group is just more lenient about that kind of wording. Meh.
@wesF: By taking 3 levels of Witch.
@wesF: By taking 3 levels of Witch.
I misread. I thought you were talking about rogue levels. So I'll rephrase. If you're using witch for your caster levels how did you get around the +2d6 sneak attack requirement? Or if you took witch 3/rogue3 then you have the same multiclassing issues as wiz3/rogue3. That being the case, what's the point? I'm not being argumentative, I genuinely don't understand the purpose of this "work around," but i want to.
I miss the multi-classing from AD&D. I had a lot of fun playing a half-elven Magic User/ cleric (of Dionysis). And one of my friends favored Magic user/rogues. The thing was, the XP needed for, say, a 9th level cleric gave you an 8th level split-class cleric, so you were mostly only one level behind the single class characters. My understanding is that there should be prestige classes to give these options. I haven't really looked at the heirophant prestige class, because I'm mostly the GM now, but I don't care for the Arcane trickster.
The real problem I have with 3.5 prestige classes is that, from the DMG (p.176),
the best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself
but there were never, AFAIK, any guidelines on designing them, something which I've been struggling with recently, just a bewildering array of more and more examples in each new book.
So, please, please, please, Paizo, would you be able to give us a set of basic, clear guidelines on how to design our own prestige classes?
I miss the multi-classing from AD&D. I had a lot of fun playing a half-elven Magic User/ cleric (of Dionysis). And one of my friends favored Magic user/rogues. The thing was, the XP needed for, say, a 9th level cleric gave you an 8th level split-class cleric, so you were mostly only one level behind the single class characters. My understanding is that there should be prestige classes to give these options. I haven't really looked at the heirophant prestige class, because I'm mostly the GM now, but I don't care for the Arcane trickster.
The real problem I have with 3.5 prestige classes is that, from the DMG (p.176),
the best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself
but there were never, AFAIK, any guidelines on designing them, something which I've been struggling with recently, just a bewildering array of more and more examples in each new book.
So, please, please, please, Paizo, would you be able to give us a set of basic, clear guidelines on how to design our own prestige classes?
The idea of PRC's are best made yourself is because they should be specific by their very nature, filling a niche character that is tied to a specific group or area or has a very specific function.
I do not find PRC very hard to make, but you need to know what you are looking for not being something you can already do within the rules, if you think lets make a PRC without any concept of why you are doing it or what it should do, you are probably going about it the wrong way.
EDIT: easiest way is to have a PRC that comes close to your concept, even if it is 3.5 and swap out abilities to get what you want from it, comparing it to the power and versatility of core classes and other PRC to see if it needs some more tooling.
@wesF: By taking 3 levels of Witch.I misread. I thought you were talking about rogue levels. So I'll rephrase. If you're using witch for your caster levels how did you get around the +2d6 sneak attack requirement? Or if you took witch 3/rogue3 then you have the same multiclassing issues as wiz3/rogue3. That being the case, what's the point? I'm not being argumentative, I genuinely don't understand the purpose of this "work around," but i want to.
Sorry if I sounded snide. I did indeed mean Witch 3/ Rogue 3. As to why you'd do it- different class abilities. Just for variety's sake is enough, but certain hexes would mesh well with the Rogue's abilities, like misfortune, slumber, and disguise. Also, the other other options for meeting the 2nd level casting req. (Sorceror, Summoner, Bard) all require 4 levels.
I hope this helps your understanding- it's not a work around, but an option. Though, apparently, it isn't a RAW option.
I miss the multi-classing from AD&D. I had a lot of fun playing a half-elven Magic User/ cleric (of Dionysis). And one of my friends favored Magic user/rogues. The thing was, the XP needed for, say, a 9th level cleric gave you an 8th level split-class cleric, so you were mostly only one level behind the single class characters. My understanding is that there should be prestige classes to give these options. I haven't really looked at the heirophant prestige class, because I'm mostly the GM now, but I don't care for the Arcane trickster.
The real problem I have with 3.5 prestige classes is that, from the DMG (p.176),
the best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself
but there were never, AFAIK, any guidelines on designing them, something which I've been struggling with recently, just a bewildering array of more and more examples in each new book.
So, please, please, please, Paizo, would you be able to give us a set of basic, clear guidelines on how to design our own prestige classes?
The idea of PRC's are best made yourself is because they should be specific by their very nature, filling a niche character that is tied to a specific group or area or has a very specific function.
I do not find PRC very hard to make, but you need to know what you are looking for not being something you can already do within the rules, if you think lets make a PRC without any concept of why you are doing it or what it should do, you are probably going about it the wrong way.
EDIT: easiest way is to have a PRC that comes close to your concept, even if it is 3.5 and swap out abilities to get what you want from it, comparing it to the power and versatility of core classes and other PRC to see if it needs some more tooling.
I am indeed looking for something specific, i.e. a prestige class for the rogue/sorcerer character of my son, who's currently more interested in the sorcerer side, whilst, as the GM, I want him to have the trap-finding skills so I don't have to lay off with the traps, and the party needs him to have rogue combat skills and HPs to offset a total lack of martial characters. In all the multitude of 3.5 prestige classes, I have Arcane Trickster and Dagger Spell Mage to work with (I don't have all the splat books). I'm looking for something more rogue oriented. It will almost certainly wind up overpowered, but I guess that doesn't matter too much as long as he knows that, and why I'm allowing it.
I'm surprised at the lack though, because I would have thought rogue/arcane caster was would be a popular choice of character.
The Pathfinder version of the Arcane Trickster is considerably improved over the original, it does however by it's nature favor a wizard build over a sorcerer but on the other hand I can say from personal experience that a sorcerer-based build is very viable. My AT was a sorcerer with the arcane bloodline.
If the party lacks a solid meat shield though there is no rogue/sorcerer combo that's going to make up for that lack without a good deal of party support. Although concentrating on summon spells might help.
I'll have a proper look at it, then. But they've not shown any enthusiasm for a move from 3.5 to pathfinder, so it might be too powerful as is.
As for lack of a meat shield, I take care to avoid creatures that dish out huge amounts of damage. (In game, I figure no-one's going to give them a commission that requires a meat shield.) The rest of the party's a druid, wizard and monk. I can't ever hit the monk, the dice rolls turn against me when I try.
Actually 3.5 Unearthed Arcana went through PrC class design through tradeoffs at length. None of that material was ever released for the SRD though. I'm not also that sure that WOTC itself always followed those guidelines.
but there were never, AFAIK, any guidelines on designing them, something which I've been struggling with recently, just a bewildering array of more and more examples in each new book.
Ah. I've got that too, though obviously haven't read it carefully enough. Thank you. (Off for some reading.)
@wesF: By taking 3 levels of Witch.I misread. I thought you were talking about rogue levels. So I'll rephrase. If you're using witch for your caster levels how did you get around the +2d6 sneak attack requirement? Or if you took witch 3/rogue3 then you have the same multiclassing issues as wiz3/rogue3. That being the case, what's the point? I'm not being argumentative, I genuinely don't understand the purpose of this "work around," but i want to.Sorry if I sounded snide. I did indeed mean Witch 3/ Rogue 3. As to why you'd do it- different class abilities. Just for variety's sake is enough, but certain hexes would mesh well with the Rogue's abilities, like misfortune, slumber, and disguise. Also, the other other options for meeting the 2nd level casting req. (Sorceror, Summoner, Bard) all require 4 levels.
I hope this helps your understanding- it's not a work around, but an option. Though, apparently, it isn't a RAW option.
Gotcha. I initially thought you were trying to take Arcane Trickster before level 7 and/or take it without any actual caster levels. I was apparently mistaken.
I like the witch/rogue/arcane trickster idea. It's an interesting flavor. Though it still has the same issues as far as multiclassing go.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I am indeed looking for something specific, i.e. a prestige class for the rogue/sorcerer character of my son, who's currently more interested in the sorcerer side, whilst, as the GM, I want him to have the trap-finding skills so I don't have to lay off with the traps, and the party needs him to have rogue combat skills and HPs to offset a total lack of martial characters. In all the multitude of 3.5 prestige classes, I have Arcane Trickster and Dagger Spell Mage to work with (I don't have all the splat books). I'm looking for something more rogue oriented. It will almost certainly wind up overpowered, but I guess that doesn't matter too much as long as he knows that, and why I'm allowing it.
If you ask in the Homebrew Forum nicely, I am sure someone will attempt to make a prestige for you.
In my ever-so humble opinion, casters are the ones most hurt by multiclassing, both because of the spell selection and the caster levels. It's perfectly reasonable to concede that some multiclassing requires characters to spread their abilities out more, making their primary casting stat (and Save DCs) weaker, but the other issue just make multiclassing casters much less desirable.
And when I think of characters, I come up with concepts based on a collection of things they do well, a collection of things they are deficient in, and a collection of their beliefs and motivations (In general). If I don't see a class or archetype that encompasses that, I want to multiclass to get to the concept. I don't feel like the character should suffer mechanically for seeking a specific and balanced concept.
In general, I think martial abilities operate pretty well, where BAB and saves stack. Attack and armor bonuses stack or don't, depending on the special ability (and that makes sense).
But caster levels don't stack. I think I'd like something that allowed caster levels to stack on a partial basis (i.e. not one-to-one), and not for every caster type (like half sorcerer levels stack with wizard, or 1/4 sorcerer levels stack with Oracle).
I looked through Kirth Gersen's Houserule document, but I didn't see how that really helped? Maybe I missed something.
@wesF: By taking 3 levels of Witch.I misread. I thought you were talking about rogue levels. So I'll rephrase. If you're using witch for your caster levels how did you get around the +2d6 sneak attack requirement? Or if you took witch 3/rogue3 then you have the same multiclassing issues as wiz3/rogue3. That being the case, what's the point? I'm not being argumentative, I genuinely don't understand the purpose of this "work around," but i want to.Sorry if I sounded snide. I did indeed mean Witch 3/ Rogue 3. As to why you'd do it- different class abilities. Just for variety's sake is enough, but certain hexes would mesh well with the Rogue's abilities, like misfortune, slumber, and disguise. Also, the other other options for meeting the 2nd level casting req. (Sorceror, Summoner, Bard) all require 4 levels.
I hope this helps your understanding- it's not a work around, but an option. Though, apparently, it isn't a RAW option.
Actually, I believe that there is a method under RAW to allow Witch to qualify. There is a Trait, Two-World Magic, that allows one to take a 0-level spell from some other class's list and add it to your own class list. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/magic-traits/two-world-magic) The Trait is printed in Pathfinder Companion: Sargava, the Lost Colony, and as such may not be permitted by an individual GM, but I believe that, as it is taken from an official publication, it does qualify as RAW.
If Arcane Trickster required the ability to cast "at least one spell of 2nd level or higher", as opposed to "at least one arcane spell of 2nd level or higher" the PrC would be open to any high enough level spellcasting class prepared with this Trait. (In my opinion, devotees of Nethys, or other gods of magic/trickery ought to be able to qualify as well.
If Arcane Trickster required the ability to cast "at least one spell of 2nd level or higher", as opposed to "at least one arcane spell of 2nd level or higher" the PrC would be open to any high enough level spellcasting class prepared with this Trait. (In my opinion, devotees of Nethys, or other gods of magic/trickery ought to be able to qualify as well.
Ohhh! I like the idea of a cleric of trickery as an arcane trickster.
However you're mistaken. It does say "at least one arcane spell of 2nd level or higher" for the arcane trickser requirements. Though I would allow a clerical arcane trickster in a homebrew if the characters theme matched. Cleric of the god of theives or what not.
@wesF: By taking 3 levels of Witch.I misread. I thought you were talking about rogue levels. So I'll rephrase. If you're using witch for your caster levels how did you get around the +2d6 sneak attack requirement? Or if you took witch 3/rogue3 then you have the same multiclassing issues as wiz3/rogue3. That being the case, what's the point? I'm not being argumentative, I genuinely don't understand the purpose of this "work around," but i want to.Sorry if I sounded snide. I did indeed mean Witch 3/ Rogue 3. As to why you'd do it- different class abilities. Just for variety's sake is enough, but certain hexes would mesh well with the Rogue's abilities, like misfortune, slumber, and disguise. Also, the other other options for meeting the 2nd level casting req. (Sorceror, Summoner, Bard) all require 4 levels.
I hope this helps your understanding- it's not a work around, but an option. Though, apparently, it isn't a RAW option.
Gotcha. I initially thought you were trying to take Arcane Trickster before level 7 and/or take it without any actual caster levels. I was apparently mistaken.
I like the witch/rogue/arcane trickster idea. It's an interesting flavor. Though it still has the same issues as far as multiclassing go.
This sounds like a good build. There's one thing the witches have access to that wizards don't. The feat Extra Hex allows you to continue to keep getting hexes even if you're multi-classed.
Perhaps there is some room for maintaining access to wizard/sorcerer/cleric abilities while multi-classing. The oracle, witch, and alchemist all have the ability to continue getting revelations, hexes, and discoveries. Granted, you're still limited by your level on some of these abilities, but it's still access.
I looked through Kirth Gersen's Houserule document, but I didn't see how that really helped? Maybe I missed something.
The details aren't in the Houserules document so much as scattered throughout the various class descriptions. Basically, many classes have options where you can add x class to y class for purposes of determining some class feature (such as spellcasting, which is the biggest hurdle for many multiclassers).
I highly recommend reading through them--they're fantastic.
Ah! Cheers!
I'm very happy that Pathfinder discourages the heavy kind of multi-classing that was so prevalent with optimizers in 3.5. I really wouldn't like to see these kinds of feats again.One of the reasons I still prefer 3.5 is the way Pathfinder discourages multiclassing.
It was very useful for making the versatile characters the 3 person parties I usually play in need.
It was also good for making characters fit the concepts I wanted rather than conform to stereotypes.
Optimization was fun as a theorectical excersize that had no impact on actual play and so did no harm.
I don't really see Pathfinder as discouraging Multi-classing, just providing a reason to play single class characters. If I want to play a Rogue/Sorcerer, for instance, I'm getting a lot more benefits then I would in 3.5. With permission, I can also take 3.5 Feats and PrCs with some minor tweaking. In my current PF game, one player is playing a Gun Mage (Iron Kingdoms)/Artificer (Eberron) who took Practiced Spellcaster(?, I know it gives +4 to a classes caster level up to your Character level). It's all effectively there still, even a bit more in a lot of cases. You don't even have to plan around your Favored Class to avoid an XP hit any more.
The difference is that there is a reason now to play a class up to 20th, which was often not the case in 3.X. Why play a cleric to 20th when you could pick up a PrC that gives you your spells and a bunch of extras at the cost of your Turn Undead, maybe. You don't have people only playing fighters to 3rd Lvl to grab feats and then moving on to another class all the time now. I'm fine with adding Feats similar to Practiced Spellcaster but I don't agree that Pathfinder has made it harder to Multi-class.
But caster levels don't stack. I think I'd like something that allowed caster levels to stack on a partial basis (i.e. not one-to-one), and not for every caster type (like half sorcerer levels stack with wizard, or 1/4 sorcerer levels stack with Oracle).
Sounds like you're looking for magic rating.
I always loved the Practiced Spellcaster feat. I still port it over from 3.5, but it would be nice to see it supported in a PF book.
I am indeed looking for something specific, i.e. a prestige class for the rogue/sorcerer character of my son, who's currently more interested in the sorcerer side, whilst, as the GM, I want him to have the trap-finding skills so I don't have to lay off with the traps, and the party needs him to have rogue combat skills and HPs to offset a total lack of martial characters. In all the multitude of 3.5 prestige classes, I have Arcane Trickster and Dagger Spell Mage to work with (I don't have all the splat books). I'm looking for something more rogue oriented. It will almost certainly wind up overpowered, but I guess that doesn't matter too much as long as he knows that, and why I'm allowing it.If you ask in the Homebrew Forum nicely, I am sure someone will attempt to make a prestige for you.
Thanks, but I'll try putting something together off the prestige bard in 3.5 Unearthed Arcana (thanks LazarX)