Sages and Specialists

[Broken Gods]

Bottom line up front (BLUF): I propose introducing NPC classes balanced with PC classes (archetypes included) that excel in their domains in a way players could only dream of but lack the knack for adventures to perform mythically abroad.

I have been playing TTRPGs since the 90s, and the one area I have always been sad to see ignored is the NPC classes. In 1996, TSR published "Sages and Specialists," the book has remained in my mind since then. None of the classes excelled at adventuring like the core and extended classes, but each did something the players could not. It always baffled me that a blacksmith could work in town for the king for 20 years, but an adventurer who never had time to sit down in a smithy could out-craft him as a matter of skill point availability and allocation.
I always imagined an NPC's skill set was too broad or specialized to make an adequate adventurer. A thief or investigator's ability to gather knowledge in a new town should pale in compassion to the 'nosey neighbor'/maid who services the castle or the 'Mother Teresa'-like figure who services the poor.
I imagine the campaign could skip forward from a break, and I could have a PC pick up meaningful skills by attaining NCP levels. Let's take Thomas Edward Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) as an example. He was, at best, a linguist and a mapmaker before his rise into history. He might have qualified as the old 'Expert' NPC class, and his fame might have been impossible without that beginning. Did he start as a level 0 and transition directly to a PC class and work forward from nothing, or did he carry valuable skills from his time as an NPC?
I wouldn't mind having a high-level 'Adept' human with a small cabal of followers capable of carrying out feats that a single wizard could never imagine on their own. Things like this shouldn't be homebrew. The mechanics should support the value added by ordinary people. Most of us are NPCs, and the most epic tales are built on the backs of ordinary people doing the things others wouldn't consider trying.
I propose the introduction of NPC classes balanced with PC classes (archetypes included) that excel in their domains in a way players could only dream of but lack the knack for adventures to perform mythically abroad.

v/r
Broken Gods

[Ruzza]

I mean, these sort of exist already in that they are firmly in the realm of the GM. We don't stat out NPCs like this, instead giving them levels and the occasional skill that exist to help ground their role in the story. This means that the old days of "level 15 expert" are gone to be replaced with "Greg, innkeeper 15; Society +28, Local Town Lore +28."

I mean, the thing is, PF2 has moved away from "dipping into talent" - there isn't anything like grabbing a level or two of something (not that it anyone dipped NPC classes in PF1 or 3.5, to the best of my knowledge). It just doesn't mesh with the system. You'd be proposing a class that exists only on the player side that specifically acts as an NPC, which function on different rules. Instead, however, we have skill boosts to explain PC growth in skilled areas as well as dedications like "Wandering Chef," "Dandy," or "Linguist."

I'm just not sure what NPC classes would bring to the table that wouldn't be able to be replicated by just an actual PC or a dedication, all the while fitting into the gameplay of PF2.

[Tridus]

I'm not really sure why we need this, since as Ruzza said: we can already build NPCs that vastly outstrip PCs at something. The rules to do it already exist. I've used them in Ruby Phoenix to create a recurring NPC who stirred up trouble but wasn't really any kind of combat threat for the PCs, and also to create a couple of characters from another game as NPC Blacksmiths as an easter egg.

If I want a gossipy neighbor that knows everything about the town, I can create a level 3 NPC with +25 "NameOfTown Lore" right now, and you're going to need a high level, rather knowledgeable PC to be competitive with them in this area.

We don't need a set of classes for NPCs to be able to do stuff like this: what we really need is to be free from a rigid framework for how NPCs are built and use one that is flexible enough to say "yeah, you can just make them disproportionally good at something if you want, its fine."

[Nicolas Paradise]

Entirely needed the 2E creature/npc creation rules already has what you want built in and there have been sample npcs that do what you want like a baker that is a 2nd level combat threat but 8th level skill threat when dealing with baking.

Tieing npcs to player levels is just a bad idea.

If you want to make a npc class system on Infinite go for it but it isn't something the game needs.

[Broken Gods]

I agree that a Game master should be able to make a player or an NPC "disproportionally good at something if you want," but if all we wanted was a rules-light universe, we would stop purchasing beyond the GM's Guide, Player's Guide, and Bestiary. Much of the game deals with players' interactions with NPCs; that is where the role-play really separates from roll-play, and the DM gets to shine.
Although I do like the idea you suggested about having an NPC with a disproportionate skill compared to their NPC level, maybe I like the idea that my NPCs can have full, experienced lives without failing to meet the expectations of a meritocracy. Perhaps they cannot defend their town against goblins because they focus on other skills/feats instead of being adventurers.
I think we limit our options when we write NPCs off as sentences separated by a few commas or as needing PC levels to be formidable. If I need to, I will homebrew a solution and keep it to myself.

v/r
Broken Gods

[Perpdepog]

Broken Gods wrote:

I agree that a Game master should be able to make a player or an NPC "disproportionally good at something if you want," but if all we wanted was a rules-light universe, we would stop purchasing beyond the GM's Guide, Player's Guide, and Bestiary. Much of the game deals with players' interactions with NPCs; that is where the role-play really separates from roll-play, and the DM gets to shine.

Although I do like the idea you suggested about having an NPC with a disproportionate skill compared to their NPC level, maybe I like the idea that my NPCs can have full, experienced lives without failing to meet the expectations of a meritocracy. Perhaps they cannot defend their town against goblins because they focus on other skills/feats instead of being adventurers.
I think we limit our options when we write NPCs off as sentences separated by a few commas or as needing PC levels to be formidable. If I need to, I will homebrew a solution and keep it to myself.

v/r
Broken Gods

I'm, kind of confused what you're saying here? What you're talking about is something that everyone else has already told you is in the game; specifically, you can look to GM Core's Building NPC Rules, which tell you at several points that, if you wish to represent an NPC being good at something, just tweak their numbers and raise the relevant statistics to be what is required. A legendary smith might only be level 0 or 1, but can have the crafting and smithing lore skill of a level 16 character.

I'm also confused where doing this same thing to players came into the discussion? Everyone has only been talking about NPCs.

[Broken Gods]

Although I may not have fully embraced all of the PF 2 rules, after a 5-year gap in GM'n, I have effectively built a game setting and have not decided on a system to settle on. I had hoped that since the setting relied heavily on NPC encounters, I could find a way to flesh this out. I don't think a legendary smith should be a level 0; it should be an 'Expert' with some abilities and a host of skills potentially available if the adventures drag them to setting XYZ. I will shush on the topic. Only 1 of my three careers has been non-warfare related, and I look at the NPCs in my life as equals. It may be a matter of perspective, but I see it as a useful tool for DMs.

Shushing now,
Broken Gods

[Perpdepog]

Broken Gods wrote:

I don't think a legendary smith should be a level 0; it should be an 'Expert' with some abilities and a host of skills potentially available if the adventures drag them to setting XYZ.

Me claiming they were level 0 was just to get the point across that there can be a radical mismatch between combat and non-combat abilities; you can have them be whatever level you'd like, with whatever abilities you desire. PF2E doesn't build creatures like PF1E did. There are no HD determining level and cability, that's all up to the GM making the creature's statblock. You just pick their level and then go down the list of tables, picking numbers as appropriate.

[Ruzza]

Here's the rules for Non-Combat Level as a point of reference, but I feel like it doesn't really paint the picture too well without more concrete examples.

It really boils down to "NPCs and PCs have different roles in both the story and gameplay," and trying to move one into the realm of the other is something that has already been done or the system really won't support.

Like a PC who wants to "take NPC levels" (i.e. improving on non-adventuring skills) already has those options through skill feats, archetypes, various Lores, and even just good ol' roleplaying. They can improve on these skills to become amazing at them, too, and they should very likely come into play in the game. It would be rather unfortunate to play as a master Linguist only to never use the ability, but that's a bit on the GM to accommodate.

Likewise, an NPC who wants to be statted out like a PC can be done, but they'll run into the artificial game limitations that PCs run into that keep the game balanced. This means that to have a legendary smith, that NPC should be at least level 15, which makes for very odd verisimilitude when trying to justify why these incredibly powerful NPCs are just doing small forms of labor around the world. So the rules allow for NPCs to act as they are intended to in a game setting - challenges or allies with their own level appropriate skills that are measured apart from the trappings of player-choices.

[PossibleCabbage]

Yeah, the thing is that there's a fundamental disconnect at a mechanics level between "how you build NPCs (including monsters)" and "how you build PCs" and this was built in from the ground level of PF2.

You can, mind you, build NPCs using PC rules but this results in them being more widely competent than it might be necessary for their role in the story. The level 8 Smith built with PC rules is going to be much more useful in the fight than the Smith NPC with +15 to craft.

This was done in part because the stories we want to tell often simply do not care what an NPC is capable of that is not related to their role in the story. We don't need to know how good the innkeeper is in a fight just like we do not need to know whether the bandit who attacks the campsite at night can juggle or sing. There is simply no need to devote the same level of attention to "NPC classes" as there is to PC classes.

[Castilliano]

One point is that PF2 NPCs can have two different levels (or more if desired, but why?). There's their combat level should the PCs face them in combat, and then a level representing the PCs facing them in another venue. Some GM books give examples.

So you might have a lawyer the PC warrior could easily one-punch out on the courthouse steps, but if faced in the courtroom itself that lawyer might destroy the party's face PC in a legal brawl. That lawyer would count as low-level as a combat obstacle and high-level as a legal obstacle. They are neither low nor high level until applied in context. Their durability might be tied to their lowest level, yes, but one might give such a lawyer a high level Will save for example, to resist Intimidation and mental magic which would be important in Golarion.

Similarly with a noble who might be pretty darn good at fencing (mid-level), but legendary at scheming (high-level obstacle in those venues). And they might have another combat level for when they're decked out in their best magic items. And another non-combat level for some side hobby, like gaming. And so on, as one's narrative requires.

So the goals of these proposed NPC classes can already be achieved in the current system, and without the GM calling on Rule Zero. The GM will need to adjudicate a bunch, but once the goals are determined the creature creation charts make crunching numbers simple (much simpler than building via levels like a PC).

[QuidEst]

Broken Gods wrote:

Although I may not have fully embraced all of the PF 2 rules, after a 5-year gap in GM'n, I have effectively built a game setting and have not decided on a system to settle on. I had hoped that since the setting relied heavily on NPC encounters, I could find a way to flesh this out. I don't think a legendary smith should be a level 0; it should be an 'Expert' with some abilities and a host of skills potentially available if the adventures drag them to setting XYZ. I will shush on the topic. Only 1 of my three careers has been non-warfare related, and I look at the NPCs in my life as equals. It may be a matter of perspective, but I see it as a useful tool for DMs.

Shushing now,
Broken Gods

Broken Gods wrote:

Although I may not have fully embraced all of the PF 2 rules, after a 5-year gap in GM'n, I have effectively built a game setting and have not decided on a system to settle on. I had hoped that since the setting relied heavily on NPC encounters, I could find a way to flesh this out. I don't think a legendary smith should be a level 0; it should be an 'Expert' with some abilities and a host of skills potentially available if the adventures drag them to setting XYZ. I will shush on the topic. Only 1 of my three careers has been non-warfare related, and I look at the NPCs in my life as equals. It may be a matter of perspective, but I see it as a useful tool for DMs.

Shushing now,
Broken Gods

I think an important thing to note is that Pathfinder 2e doesn't use classes for anything except PCs by default.

You have an NPC that gets angry, gains temporary hitpoints, and hits harder? They're not build as a Barbarian. They probably have the Rage feature like a Barbarian would, but they don't have some number of feats corresponding to their level. GMs can choose to build NPCs using the rules for PCs if they want to, of course.

Classes are not some intrinsic part of the world; they are the way that players build characters to interface with the world.

Older editions built all NPCs like PCs, and so things like NPC classes made sense. It also caused a lot of problems, because combat-relevant NPCs would need gear on par with a PC, which would mean huge bumps in wealth whenever fighting a properly-equipped enemy. There were mismatches between "difficult" and "effective level" (CR vs. hitdice).

For some examples of the design philosophy in action, take a look at Librarian and Sage. Combat stats are loosely determined by a chart, based on how powerful the GM wants them to be in fights. Skills can be set at a level appropriate to their professional expertise. Then, at the end, the GM provides them with a few abilities- often ones not available to PCs- that let them feel like whatever they are. Those abilities sound like the part you're missing, and people haven't been suggesting.

Rather than set out to build entire classes that can represent any job, Pathfinder 2 prefers have the GM come up with one or two small abilities to cover those professions. The PCs need complete classes because they're always "in-focus", while NPCs are usually only on screen for short stretches in which they may or may not even need to make rolls. If you want to give NPCs the same treatment as PCs get, and you also want to include non-combat NPCs in that category, then yeah- it'll be a matter of homebrew or of using a different system.

[Trip.H]

I agree with the OP that there are some problems with the way pf2 has to use PC rules for building NPCs.

One infamous example is early in Strength of Thousands, where the teacher who recruited you, and has the unique power of outright granting/implanting cantrips into others, is stated to be a lvl 2 or 3 spellcaster.

Like, this senior teacher at the oldest magic school would probably be killed in that low-level combat if the PCs sat on the sidelines. The other NPCs in that fight are prospective *students*, and they can easily outperform him with a few un/lucky rolls.

And because he's not scripted to get into another fight, that's it for the guy. His stat sheet is static, set so that he'll not "outshine" a group of noobie PCs.

.

.

The core issue is that pf2 is a level-scaling game. So many important things scale with level, but all the AP designers just pick something relative to the expected PC level (at that particular moment in time!) and then have to work with that. It's more important that the core saves, HP, etc, are "close enough" if they ever get into a fight, than for the NPC to make sense as a whole.

I don't think enough thought / consideration is placed into the fact that your Armor Class and literal Hit Points just keep going up because your level number has. It's outright not possible for a Level _ Oracle to have an AC lower than a certain number, NPC or otherwise.

World features, like a Master smith, or a Rank _ Spellcaster, are stuck and entangled with PC level and PC statistics.

I do think that pf2 would greatly benefit from official guidance / instruction on how to build NPCs in a way that splits their statistics so that you don't get PC scaling.

Something like splitting the "chassis/core level" from the "profession/class level". For that SoT example, that mechanic could allow the teacher to have a low-ish core level for the purposes of HP, AC, etc, but allow them to have a +6ish level bump in the Wizard department.

.

Basically, too much is all entangled in the singular "Level" for it to play nice with NPCs as a concept. You either get situations where the tenured Wizard professors literally cannot cast 3rd R magics, or the NPC caster placed there to be just good enough for a Resurrection could solo the narrative problem.

Some invented "Core level" + "Class | Profession level" system for NPCs that instructs how to resolve the two different levels could be super helpful and useful. Especially for AP / scenario designers.

[apeironitis]

Trip.H wrote:

I agree with the OP that there are some problems with the way pf2 has to use PC rules for building NPCs.

One infamous example is early in Strength of Thousands, where the teacher who recruited you, and has the unique power of outright granting/implanting cantrips into others, is stated to be a lvl 2 or 3 spellcaster.

Like, this senior teacher at the oldest magic school would probably be killed in that low-level combat if the PCs sat on the sidelines. The other NPCs in that fight are prospective *students*, and they can easily outperform him with a few un/lucky rolls.

And because he's not scripted to get into another fight, that's it for the guy. His stat sheet is static, set so that he'll not "outshine" a group of noobie PCs.

.

.

The core issue is that pf2 is a level-scaling game. So many important things scale with level, but all the AP designers just pick something relative to the expected PC level (at that particular moment in time!) and then have to work with that. It's more important that the core saves, HP, etc, are "close enough" if they ever get into a fight, than for the NPC to make sense as a whole.

I don't think enough thought / consideration is placed into the fact that your Armor Class and literal Hit Points just keep going up because your level number has. It's outright not possible for a Level _ Oracle to have an AC lower than a certain number, NPC or otherwise.

World features, like a Master smith, or a Rank _ Spellcaster, are stuck and entangled with PC level and PC statistics.

I do think that pf2 would greatly benefit from official guidance / instruction on how to build NPCs in a way that splits their statistics so that you don't get PC scaling.

Something like splitting the "chassis/core level" from the "profession/class level". For that SoT example, that mechanic could allow the teacher to have a low-ish core level for the purposes of HP, AC, etc, but allow them to have a +6ish level bump in the Wizard department.

.

Basically, too much is all...

The players don't know and don't need to know the level ir other stats of that NPC. All that happens behind the scene. You could easily hand-wave it as the teacher holding back to let their students shine. NPCs don't follow the same rules as players. Their stats are not set in stone either. Following the spirit of the NPC creation rules, you don't need to make the NPC stats any more complex if there's little chance of that NPC engaging in a more difficult combat later. You can always change the sheet if you need it.

[Trip.H]

apeironitis wrote:

You could easily hand-wave it as the teacher holding back to let their students shine.

Not really, no. If combat happens, the default is that it's life-threatening.

There's no real way to have a senior Wizard of the Magambyaa be ambushed, and then "hold back to let their students shine" when any number of them could be killed within 1-2 foe turns. That's one of the flimsiest excuses I've seen.

If that professor throws a damaging spell, even a cantrip, that is done with the intent to kill the target. Seeing the prof inflict as much damage as a student just makes the prof look like an imposter. As in, I could not honestly tell if the PCs were *supposed* to suspect the prof was an imposter, or if it was just written that poorly. This issue plagued/plagues a lot of the SoT AP, as so many NPCs are impossibly incompetent, I can't tell if each presented scenario is a setup or genuine.

.

.

The OP's premise is rather sound. Having overall combat prowess of "Level" be entangled with skills and professions causes narrative problems.

IMO, the book guidance, such as the Non-Combat Level & PC-Style Build sections, is honestly pretty unhelpful, a little contradictory, and oddly is also more complex than seems needed.

Writing some specific procedure for using low combat level creature/PC chassis as a baseline, then overriding some of those features/statistics w/ a higher level PC sheet for the desired areas (such as spellcasting), would be very helpful.

This whole "dual level" NPC method can/could be done super quick if an actual procedure was provided. Instead, the books spend a lot of text explaining the problem, but leave the solution up to a GM to invent.

[Unicore]

I think the big change between PF1 and PF2 is that level as a whole only really exists within the context of the players and their immediate environs. Everywhere that GMs and players use level to think about the game is just about the mechanics of those interactions and not narratively limiting restrictions.

Even settlement level is just a mechanical convenience for the immediate adventure and not actually world defining or important. James Jacobs goes to great lengths to try to make the mechanical changes between adventures feel organic and natural, but they will jump to whatever they need to for the sake of the story, not for internal world mechanical consistency.

[Ascalaphus]

I haven't played SoT but it sounds like the pretty common writer's problem of "what to do with NPCs that shoulda be helpin' the PCs". Sometimes the question is why the NPC even survives because they're like ten levels lower than the PCs, and enemies are throwing AoEs in anger. Sometimes it's wondering why the NPC doesn't solve the whole problem by themselves.

And the professors at the Magaambya are a bit different in narrative role than the NPC blacksmith. They're not total civilians - they're actually portrayed as having more or less the same character classes as the PCs.

It'd be the same as when you were running an adventure centered around a thieves' guild, or mercenary company - some NPCs do need to look a lot more like PCs with levels, than your typical NPC needs to look.

It's become a bit of a meme in my PFS group that during combat with NPCs, they'll be "handling their side of the combat" and miraculously finish off their enemies juuuust at the same time as the PCs are done. We all roll our eyes and laugh it off because we know the writer had to get them out of the way somehow. We don't actually want them to steal the spotlight. We just don't want an immersion-breaker there, so we accept the thin excuse.

So I guess the lesson for SoT would be - as a GM, provide the thin excuse, and as players, accept the thin excuse.

[Perpdepog]

This is the first I'm hearing of issues with the NPCs in SoT, and I've been running it for about a year-ish at this point. Like, from what I've been able to tell reading the AP volumes, the adventure is pretty up front about teachers being low level because combat just isn't in their natures as people, or their interest as a focus of study. If the teacher I think other folks in the thread are talking about is the correct one, this is even spelled out explicitly.

[Lucas Yew]

I like the OP's proposal as a simulationist and bottom-up design aficionado, but IME the vogue for RPG design for the last decade or more has been top-down and narrativism. Well, trends tend to cycle and I can be patient, so...

[RPG-Geek]

I tend to prefer games with a tighter rules link between how PCs and NPCs operate than PF2 uses. It just makes the world feel more plausible when everything is built, more or less, the same under the hood. I am aware that this was always somewhat a fiction as monsters often needed bespoke modifiers to present even the ghost of a challenge to a well built party, but at least the NPCs with class levels were supposed to be 1-to-1 comparable to PCs.

If you're going to go for a narrative game, that still has more crunch than PBtA games, I find FATE does that very well. The fact that PF2 draws such a sharp divide between PCs and the rest of the setting harms my enjoyment of the system and it's setting.

[moosher12]

apeironitis wrote:

You could easily hand-wave it as the teacher holding back to let their students shine.

When a party member dies in the encounter, and the teacher is like, "Lol, whoops"

[moosher12]

Side note, one aspect of building NPCs like PCs is letting players marvel at what a high level NPC can do. During my Kingmaker game, I scrapped Lady Aldori's statblock and rebuilt her using PC rules, plus the home rules (Fighter with Aldori Duelist archetype using free archetype and ancestry paragon, though still with her default equipment)

The PCs earned the respect of the ice giants, so I added a secondary group of enemy mooks for her to fight. There's a certain thematic impressiveness when the person giving you a job is solo fighting a group and visibly keeping them from becoming a distraction in your fight.

In my opinion, it frankly did a lot to secure my players' respect for Lady Jamandi. I tried to use Jamandi this way to paint a picture of "This could be you," which I figured would be harder to get across if she was a statblock instead of a built character.

Frankly I build all important NPCs as PCs with a reduced equipment budget. or glossing over features they would get if they would not apply to their use as an NPC.

[Tridus]

Trip.H wrote:

apeironitis wrote:

You could easily hand-wave it as the teacher holding back to let their students shine.

Not really, no. If combat happens, the default is that it's life-threatening.

There's no real way to have a senior Wizard of the Magambyaa be ambushed, and then "hold back to let their students shine" when any number of them could be killed within 1-2 foe turns. That's one of the flimsiest excuses I've seen.

In my SoT campaign, that teacher was busy running defense.

SoT Book 1:

Teacher Ot was protecting the Anandi visitors from the Griffons, as they're absolutely lethal for the Anandi. Since two of them were dying 2 pretty early in the combat, this worked just fine, and the PCs were running offense.

Quote:

If that professor throws a damaging spell, even a cantrip, that is done with the intent to kill the target. Seeing the prof inflict as much damage as a student just makes the prof look like an imposter. As in, I could not honestly tell if the PCs were *supposed* to suspect the prof was an imposter, or if it was just written that poorly. This issue plagued/plagues a lot of the SoT AP, as so many NPCs are impossibly incompetent, I can't tell if each presented scenario is a setup or genuine.

I don't think its a problem with Teacher Ot. The setting makes pretty clear that the Maaganbaya respects knowledge and behavior more than it does raw power. He's a professor because he's wise and capable at working with new students, not because he's an effective combat caster. Only one branch of the Maaganbaya actually prioritizes combat, and he isn't in it.

This isn't really a problem unless people hold to a rigid philosophy of "to be good at anything in Golarian you must also be good at combat", and while PCs basically follow that pattern (because it's basically how PF2 PC creation rules work), NPCs explicitly do not need to.

Besides, this isn't really the biggest narrative issue with a professor in SoT. The bigger one is Professor Mafika Ayuwari, because we know from Fists of the Ruby Phoenix that he is a level 17 Tempest Sun Mage and more than capable of holding his own in a fight. Basically if he's around, nothing should be a threat.

SoT Book 1:

I worked around that at the masking ceremony where they get attacked by insect swarms by describing it as the room being absolutely swarmed by insects. Like, just tons of them. Mafika was in the northern half of the room and I narrated it such that he single handily handled that entire half of the room, including protecting all the guests (like one PC's mom), and the civilians being around forced him to hold back some. It took literally everyone else combined to deal with the other stuff because he's that strong in comparison.

But in terms of PF2 combat mechanics, he can solo that entire encounter without breaking a sweat. Fortunately the players were accepting enough of the narration, since three of them played FotRP and thus know exactly what he's capable of.

Quote:

The OP's premise is rather sound. Having overall combat prowess of "Level" be entangled with skills and professions causes narrative problems.

IMO, the book guidance, such as the Non-Combat Level & PC-Style Build sections, is honestly pretty unhelpful, a little contradictory, and oddly is also more complex than seems needed.

Writing some specific procedure for using low combat level creature/PC chassis as a baseline, then overriding some of those features/statistics w/ a higher level PC sheet for the desired areas (such as spellcasting), would be very helpful.

This whole "dual level" NPC method can/could be done super quick if an actual procedure was provided. Instead, the books spend a lot of text explaining the problem, but leave the solution up to a GM to invent.

The OP's premise is that NPC classes are needed, and they're not. The existing creation rules accomodate this situation pretty well. All that's really needed is clearer advice for GMs to say "this NPC can be a level 2 encounter in a fight, and a level 15 encounter in a social setting." As well as better notation in the NPC stat blocks for when something like that is happening. ie: Teacher Ot could be "level 4 (8)" or something like that to denote that he's actually much more capable in another role than he is in a fight.

[Errenor]

Tridus wrote:

But in terms of PF2 combat mechanics, he can solo that entire encounter without breaking a sweat. Fortunately the players were accepting enough of the narration, since three of them played FotRP and thus know exactly what he's capable of.

But can he solo this encounter in time, in one round for example or there would be consequences (like victims)? I think questions of time/speed also could help with narrative. Unless you can just Wish away all threats or do something comparable, there's only so much you can do when time is of the essence.

[Trip.H]

Tridus wrote:

I still strongly disagree with your stance on teacher Ot. If a spellcaster throws an offensive cantrip, the players know the mechanics of that. They know it scales with the top R of possible spell with the max DC.

The guy could be a total pacifist who only ever learned a single attack cantrip for self defense. But if he throws that spell, it means he has intent and is casting it as hard as he can.

The effect of that cantrip is an unambiguous, numerical datapoint as to the spellcaster's power. This fact is not avoidable within any paradigm of NPC building. Nor is it a problem, this is simply being able to observe the spellcasting power of a spellcaster. That's fine.

There is no honest way for a player to see Lvl 4 Ot throw an offensive cantrip, watch the results, and then think the guy is still a powerful spellcaster. This is especially true if the other NPCs are literally dying on the floor. Once his motivation is obvious, we can only see Ot's spellcasting ability.

This was a breaking point in the narrative that SoT has never really recovered from (currently L8).

SoT early spoilers:

And when we later have reason to think/know the academy and city are being infiltrated by imposters, I wondered if a big clue was hidden in hindsight, with Ot's previous performance as a intentional hint. It soon became clear that the SoT AP did not support *any* amount of proactive investigation by the players, and that we literally had to just wait to be attacked, more than once. Overall, this wonderful AP concept has thus far been seriously squandered by the same "keep all hands inside the rollercoaster" writing of on-the-move APs like Gatewalkers. So much so that I'm happy that the static setting was abandoned, as we have left the school (so ofc the MacGuffin we are not allowed to protect can be stolen, ffs).

What's not fine is that the system lacks procedure for allowing an NPC to deviate from a PC's form of linear controlled growth.

It makes perfect sense for Teacher Ot to be a sub-par combatant (low core level), but it absolutely does *not* make sense for him to be a L4 spellcaster. Random goon spellcasters the players will encounter in the city will exceed his magical talent.

I have no idea why I'm getting such pushback on this obvious narrative problem resultant of Level-entanglement. Our GM even told us that he immediately altered Ot's statsheet (and spell list so that he has more than just Daze to attack w/) for future groups.

Players *know* how level and spell progression works. If players knew that NPC crafters/spellcasters did *not* follow PC combat progression, then the narrative dissonance of wanting to ask/beg NPCs to help save the town/region/world would be greatly ameliorated.

And the reverse case, where poor Teacher Ot became the first big joke in SoT, would also be completely avoidable.

.

While a separate issue, I am absolutely baffled by the degree of seeming fear the writers have for NPCs "out-shining" PCs. Pacifist Teacher Ot being forced into a lethal fight and rolling 16d6 on a crit cantrip would be a really cool moment. There is nothing wrong with using combat even when it's in the PC's favor due to circumstances like NPC help. It's a bloody story.

Instead of a prof McGonagall rolling up their sleeves and demonstrating the reason they are an instructor, we got a Gilderoy Lockhart flailing around, nearly helpless with a 1d6 Daze (that's his only offense. 1d6 Daze.).

[Trip.H]

Errenor wrote:

Tridus wrote:

But in terms of PF2 combat mechanics, he can solo that entire encounter without breaking a sweat. Fortunately the players were accepting enough of the narration, since three of them played FotRP and thus know exactly what he's capable of.

But can he solo this encounter in time, in one round for example or there would be consequences (like victims)? I think questions of time/speed also could help with narrative. Unless you can just Wish away all threats or do something comparable, there's only so much you can do when time is of the essence.

Absolutely, there's sooooo many ways to have a high level NPC participate while being unable to make it an "auto-win" for the PCs. From a large number of targets taking all their actions, to the lack of combat prep making for a less effective combatant, to other NPCs needing protection (different "loss" conditions).

Due to all the assassination attempts, our PCs made a joke about how we were always in combat gear w/ combat-ready spells slotted. It reduced the dissonance with us supposedly being ambushed unprepared to fight (and why others were not ready for it), and made sense given that a PC got crit dying 2 by the very first assassin during the L1 introduction ceremony (which is unusual violence that other students did not get exposed to).

.

Actually going into an NPC's stats and making them a weakling who is unable to help is the one thing that should be off the table as a non-option, because that's literally changing the NPC into someone else.

[apeironitis]

moosher12 wrote:

Side note, one aspect of building NPCs like PCs is letting players marvel at what a high level NPC can do. During my Kingmaker game, I scrapped Lady Aldori's statblock and rebuilt her using PC rules, plus the home rules (Fighter with Aldori Duelist archetype using free archetype and ancestry paragon, though still with her default equipment)

The PCs earned the respect of the ice giants, so I added a secondary group of enemy mooks for her to fight. There's a certain thematic impressiveness when the person giving you a job is solo fighting a group and visibly keeping them from becoming a distraction in your fight.

In my opinion, it frankly did a lot to secure my players' respect for Lady Jamandi. I tried to use Jamandi this way to paint a picture of "This could be you," which I figured would be harder to get across if she was a statblock instead of a built character.

Frankly I build all important NPCs as PCs with a reduced equipment budget. or glossing over features they would get if they would not apply to their use as an NPC.

You can totally do that with the creature building rules. The players won't know the numbers, so your convoluted method is a pointless exercise.

[Tridus]

Errenor wrote:

Tridus wrote:

But in terms of PF2 combat mechanics, he can solo that entire encounter without breaking a sweat. Fortunately the players were accepting enough of the narration, since three of them played FotRP and thus know exactly what he's capable of.

But can he solo this encounter in time, in one round for example or there would be consequences (like victims)? I think questions of time/speed also could help with narrative. Unless you can just Wish away all threats or do something comparable, there's only so much you can do when time is of the essence.

He can solo the entire encounter in 1 turn, RAW (and with his initiative modifier is almost certainly going first).

SoT and FotRP:

He has Chain Lightning prepared in FotRP at DC 41. In the encounter, the entire room is within range and nothing hostile with stats is capable of critically succeeding even with a nat 20. Chain Lightning has no upper limit on targets if they're in range and he can avoid hitting friendlies. Unless his damage is something crazy like 9 on 9d12, everything he hits is fried.

Just to show how powerful he is, if he didn't care about casualties for some reason he can Halcyon Surge Meteor Swarm and Impaling Briars for Wall of Thorns in the entire room as a 3-action cast. Almost nothing in the room is surviving that (including the PCs). Obviously he wouldn't do this.

Like, there's no real reason the PCs have to fight anything if he goes flat out, and 3 of them know that because they've fought him before on other characters and barely beat his team. So my narration was focused on showcasing that he is still at least ballpark as strong as they remember while also giving something for them to do.

I also don't think the idea that he would just have no combat spells prepared at the moment would fly because he's a Tempest Sun Mage and being ready to defend the school/city is kind of their thing. I can get away with saying "he didn't have Chain Lightning today" if someone asks why he didn't do what I outlined above, but he needs to be doing something awesome or its just not credible.

It ultimately requires some suspension of disbelief on the players part, but part of the GM's job in this situation is to sell it in a way that the players can accept. I found this one a much harder sell than Teacher Ot, because "this is a guy who is a good teacher but isn't actually all that strong" is an easier sell IMO than "this guy was strong enough to almost take out the eventual Ruby Phoenix Tournament Champions but somehow needs our help to clear this room" is.

[Tridus]

Trip.H wrote:

Tridus wrote:

I still strongly disagree with your stance on teacher Ot. If a spellcaster throws an offensive cantrip, the players know the mechanics of that. They know it scales with the top R of possible spell with the max DC.

The guy could be a total pacifist who only ever learned a single attack cantrip for self defense. But if he throws that spell, it means he has intent and is casting it as hard as he can.

The effect of that cantrip is an unambiguous, numerical datapoint as to the spellcaster's power. This fact is not avoidable within any paradigm of NPC building. Nor is it a problem, this is simply being able to observe the spellcasting power of a spellcaster. That's fine.

There is no honest way for a player to see Lvl 4 Ot throw an offensive cantrip, watch the results, and then think the guy is still a powerful spellcaster. This is especially true if the other NPCs are literally dying on the floor. Once his motivation is obvious, we can only see Ot's spellcasting ability.

This was a breaking point in the narrative that SoT has never really recovered from (currently L8).

I think the fundamental disconnect here is the idea that he's a "powerful spellcaster". What makes him a powerful spellcaster?

Just because he's a teacher doesn't mean that he has to be powerful. His spellcasting abilities aren't that good, as you've noted. He has a unique ability... but so does the PCs level 1 Kineticist, who can effectively create entire forests of trees in so short a time that it would impress an Archdruid.

The whole problem IMO here isn't actually a game one at all: its people making the assumption that he must be powerful and then being disappointed when they learn that he's not. That's an expectation management problem rather than a mechanical problem.

Quote:

** spoiler omitted **

This I agree with you on. :)

SoT Book 2:

My PCs have figured out what's going on with Asada long before the AP expects they will and just want to go look into it now, so I'm an awkward spot of either trying to come up with reasons for them to not go there, skipping a bunch of content (which I don't want to do as they're having fun with the content in chapter 2 and skipping too much makes it hard for them to justify getting study rolls), or juggle and re-balance things so they can do it grossly out of order.

I'll probably just let them do it out of order so the narrative makes sense, but it definitely exposes the limits of the AP when stuff like this happens.

But on the other stuff, I'm just not really having the problem you're having with it. He's not a teacher because he's a powerful spellcaster. He's a teacher because he's a good "intro to magic" teacher.

[Castilliano]

I've had guest NPCs fight alongside the party (but not really) by simply partitioning who handles what. "We'll take the blue monsters!" and so forth. Then the players get their balanced encounter, while demonstrating what the others can do too. In fact, one can run an imbalanced encounter because there's a cavalry right there to rescue them (not that one would plan for that without some narrative purpose). One must prepare to clarify the meta just in case some players/PCs are feeling overly helpful and possibly put themselves in danger of being one-shot.

It sounds like some of the SoT teachers might need that delineation where they create a room full of corpses kinda offscreen in the room next door while the PCs handle the actual encounter and "watch the teacher's back".

Another trick one often sees in anime & superhero stories is where the enemy has a device (often single use) to neutralize the known, super-duper threat and it's up to the scrappy underlings to handle the encounter. "OMG, they took out the teacher!" can be an intense, dramatic opening!
And by neutralize, no killing, more likely confine or de-magic temporarily so the PCs can shine. Imagine your players do know the teacher's 17th level and then some strange orb lands at his feet and he's imprisoned for the foreseeable future. Heck, you might have an enemy near death and with a spare action take out a similar orb as if to use it the next turn. (And it doesn't have to be similar at all, or even function w/o plot trickery.)

[Trip.H]

Tridus wrote:

Again, the excuses for Ot's spellcasting fall completely flat.

The players have the entire Branch System mechanic, where they need those skill checks to rank up within the Magaambya. I don't think Ot's stats will get him very far in that regard. It is blatantly obvious that Ot was set at L4 only because L4 is the appropriate level for that scripted fight.

And once again, Ot's spellcasting falls behind every single spellcaster mook the players will encounter after that event.

It is completely absurd for a respected senior professor of the Magaambya to be an inferior spellcaster to (literally) nameless nobodies like that.

Hence, Ot could have a genuinely low core/combat level, while having the spellcasting of a 10th level Halcyon Wizard.

I do not understand why objection is still being levied against this. The book clearly states that this is something that can come up

Non-Combat Level wrote:

An NPC's level should represent their combat prowess. A common person might not be a combat threat, even if they're important or highly skilled, and they consequently have a low level. However, that doesn't mean they can't present a challenge in other types of encounters. This is represented by a non-combat level and tends to be specific to their area of expertise. For example, a barrister might be level –1 in combat but a 4th-level creature in an encounter related to legal matters.

As I have said before, the only thing missing from the rules is an actual procedure to implement that described "dual level" behavior. Ot being a L4 combatant is a bit low, but fine. Ot being a L4 spellcaster was immersion-breaking to our party and GM.

[PossibleCabbage]

I honestly didn't find "someone who is an expert in a university setting is nonetheless not very useful in practical matters" to be even remotely implausible.

[Trip.H]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I honestly didn't find "someone who is an expert in a university setting is nonetheless not very useful in practical matters" to be even remotely implausible.

The guy is senior staff at a wizard school who has never been capable of casting a 3rd Rank spell.

A random frog is a better spellcaster than him. Along with other quest-giving NPCs. They are encountered later in the AP, so they get a higher level. Even a rejected student who is half Alchemist and employed as a crafter casts R4 magics.

Ot is done dirty and screwed only because the AP puts him in one early scripted fight.

[Errenor]

Tridus wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Tridus wrote:

But in terms of PF2 combat mechanics, he can solo that entire encounter without breaking a sweat. Fortunately the players were accepting enough of the narration, since three of them played FotRP and thus know exactly what he's capable of.

But can he solo this encounter in time, in one round for example or there would be consequences (like victims)? I think questions of time/speed also could help with narrative. Unless you can just Wish away all threats or do something comparable, there's only so much you can do when time is of the essence.

He can solo the entire encounter in 1 turn, RAW (and with his initiative modifier is almost certainly going first).

Ok, ok, I guess in this case power difference is just too great. Nevertheless the trick I mentioned could help in other cases.

[PossibleCabbage]

Trip.H wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I honestly didn't find "someone who is an expert in a university setting is nonetheless not very useful in practical matters" to be even remotely implausible.

The guy is senior staff at a wizard school who has never been capable of casting a 3rd Rank spell.

A random frog is a better spellcaster than him. Along with other quest-giving NPCs. They are encountered later in the AP, so they get a higher level. Even a rejected student who is half Alchemist and employed as a crafter casts R4 magics.

Ot is done dirty and screwed only because the AP puts him in one early scripted fight.

The easy way to spin this though is that he didn't prepare any spells even applicable to combat in slots higher than 2nd today, so we didn't bother writing them down. Like you have a built in excuse at an institution of magical research and learning to have really esoteric spells prepapred.

As for "whether he has chain lightning prepared tomorrow or a month from now" I think it's mostly irrelevant what character's stat sheets say when they're not slated to appear in the given scene.

[Tridus]

Errenor wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Tridus wrote:

But in terms of PF2 combat mechanics, he can solo that entire encounter without breaking a sweat. Fortunately the players were accepting enough of the narration, since three of them played FotRP and thus know exactly what he's capable of.

But can he solo this encounter in time, in one round for example or there would be consequences (like victims)? I think questions of time/speed also could help with narrative. Unless you can just Wish away all threats or do something comparable, there's only so much you can do when time is of the essence.

He can solo the entire encounter in 1 turn, RAW (and with his initiative modifier is almost certainly going first).

Ok, ok, I guess in this case power difference is just too great. Nevertheless the trick I mentioned could help in other cases.

For sure. :) This is one you have to narrate around unless your players just don't know who he is or what the Ruby Phoenix Tournament is, and then its somewhat easier.

Normally I like that PF2 is a level scaling world, but situations like this are where that type of scaling shows its issues. This one guy is capable of solving every combat situation the PCs encounter effortlessly if he gets pointed in that direction, so you either need people to not think about it that much or have some plausible reason why he's not resolving it. And that's why I found him the most difficult teacher to deal with, narrative wise.

[Unicore]

Golarion is only level scaling in the context of encounters around a very specific set of heroes that are the protagonists of specific stories, not as a world building requirement. NPCs can literally have any random numbers for stats that the GM wants them to, preferably numbers that help the players have fun and tell a fun story. That is a big change from PF1 to PF2, and the adventure designers try not to shove that in your face as a GM or a player, because they know that some people really want mechanics that create narrative world building consistency, but really trying to hold the entire world to it, and still have a range of challenges that creates fun encounters for the PCs tends to mean concentrating way too many powerful people in specific places where the story is happening.

SO if the teacher is particularly knowledgeable about certain kinds of magic, they might just have studied about the theory of it, or they might have once been a powerful combat caster, but have not cast spells offensively in so long that they have forgotten how to do it and have the equivalent of a huge penalty to their save DCs, that the PCs won't have to worry about because they always seem to be at the center of the action, and not just casting spells in battle maybe once in their life time, or maybe only once in the last 20 years.

[moosher12]

apeironitis wrote:

You can totally do that with the creature building rules. The players won't know the numbers, so your convoluted method is a pointless exercise.

You cannot say "This could be you" if it is impossible for you the player to build the NPC as they were. You can say "Wow, they're strong" but you cannot say "This could be you."

[PossibleCabbage]

Like every NPC stat block is a snapshot of that individual at the specific time the PCs encounter them, through the lens of "what their role in the story is". It can, and should, be different if the PCs encounter that individual at a different time in a different context (after all, the PCs' character sheets change all the time too.)

[Squiggit]

moosher12 wrote:

apeironitis wrote:

You can totally do that with the creature building rules. The players won't know the numbers, so your convoluted method is a pointless exercise.

You cannot say "This could be you" if it is impossible for you the player to build the NPC as they were. You can say "Wow, they're strong" but you cannot say "This could be you."

I mean, you pretty easily could. Like you can literally just say that no one will stop you.

[Ruzza]

Yeah, I suppose I personally don't like the "Look I've built this NPC using the same rules as all of you!" especially in the case of Lady Aldori. My players don't want their limited play time spent watching me show off by having my NPCs fight other NPCs. I describe the action, but keep the spotlight on my players.

[PossibleCabbage]

The "this can be you" thing is kind of a non sequitur since players don't have an expectation of "potentially being able to play as" a huge number of things they encounter. Nobody's walking around thinking "well, I could be a dragon, or a bone golem, or a will-o'-wisp, or a xorn." Likewise I doubt that most players have "I will retire to be a small town blacksmith once my craft number is high enough" in mind as a satisfying ending for their character's story.

[moosher12]

A lot of my players actually do want that.

We enable a lot of Battlezoo ancestries.

I have a succubus being played in one game, using their Demons book.

I have a hill giant in the same game, using their Giants book.

I have one player asking me to be a harpy by reflavoring a strix, and I know they will be very excited the day Roll for Combat finally does Harpy.

I have two players who are looking forward to being satyrs now that they are announced.

I know another who is considering playing a dragon.

I myself would love to play a catrino.

So from my experience, yeah, there are players who do exactly want that.

[apeironitis]

moosher12 wrote:

A lot of my players actually do want that.

We enable a lot of Battlezoo ancestries.

I have a succubus being played in one game, using their Demons book.

I have a hill giant in the same game, using their Giants book.

I have one player asking me to be a harpy by reflavoring a strix, and I know they will be very excited the day Roll for Combat finally does Harpy.

I have two players who are looking forward to being satyrs now that they are announced.

I know another who is considering playing a dragon.

So from my experience, yeah, there are players who do exactly want that.

It still has little to do with building NPCs like PCs.

[Ruzza]

I mean, there are - you know your group best. But I wouldn't consider that a large enough portion to change or alter how much of the game handles PCs and NPCs.

[moosher12]

apeironitis wrote:

It still has little to do with building NPCs like PCs.

That was a response to this statement

PossibleCabbage wrote:

players don't have an expectation of "potentially being able to play as" a huge number of things they encounter. Nobody's walking around thinking "well, I could be a dragon, or a bone golem, or a will-o'-wisp, or a xorn."

Essentially to say is I've met my share of players who do want to make characters of the sorts of things they'd see as NPCs in response to an implication they don't exist. Now, as Ruzza appropriately stated, they are a minority, but I want to remind that they do exist.

[Unicore]

The game is full of “these mechanics only really work within a very constrained set of circumstances.” A chase scene encounter might basically throw movement speed out the window, and has to, because static movement numbers are too boring to make for an interesting encounter. When is a fireball going to burn down the city and when is it going to leave all the pouches and papers on the enemy unharmed because the story needs those things not to be destroyed by common character actions? What about stealth and infiltration encounters?

All of the game mechanics are really just narrative abstractions contained in a set of guidelines that help the specific scene run smoothly with just enough detail to be captivating and fun but not enough to bog down play. I think it is much better as a player to accept that and sign off on “the GM is going to spend their time making the game that we are all playing work in the moment” and not push back too hard on “why can’t I extrapolate all the numbers for all the NPCs and world elements and expect all of that to stay balanced and fair, when it has nothing to do with the game the GM has prepared.”

Like that is why the general DC and DCs by level table are so excellent. They cover the GM for loosely creating a mechanically coherent world without actually needing to stay it out. But those numbers are only suggestions, with ways to modify them by more than 10 points when the circumstances call for it.

[Pronate11]

This just came up about the level of the teachers in SoT. All I said was that non tempest sun mages were very high level in their specialty, but are not combatants and so are fairly low level combat wise. There were literally no complaints.

[Set]

I kind of liked the ideas from Sages & Specialists for some of the classes like the Apothecary or Smith.

Skill based classes that did something like the Rogue (who gets extra utility out of Disable Device thanks to trapfinding) or Bard (who can do more with Perform than non-Bards) and extended to skills like;

Alchemy (imagine, an alchemist who *actually used the alchemy skill!*, no mutagens, no bombs, just bigger and better alchemical fire and acid and thunderstones and tanglefoot bags!),

Diplomacy (the 'Diplomancer' of 3.5 theorycraft),

Craft - Weaponsmith/Armorer (make temp upgrades to armor or weapons to make them MW or have a +1 armor bonus if the Arms-Smith outfits you in the morning, or a +1 non-magical damage bonus from sharpening or cleaning the weapon each morning for the Arms-Smith, at higher levels, can coat a weapon with a thin layer of silver or cold iron or whatever, so that it counts as that material for X hits, or the day, or whatever, assorted other options could exist at higher levels, adding different weapon traits or improvements temporarily (gotta keep that Arms-Smith with you if you want those buffs for more than a single use or fight or day!)),

Handle Animal (the 2nd edition Ranger, with a bunch of lower-tier animal minions, but no actual 'animal companion'),

Knowledge (an Archivist or Sage that can give in-combat buffs to attack, damage, AC, saves or opposed checks against specific creature types using Knowledge checks),

Heal (a non-magical healer! Expanded to all sorts of non-magical remedy options not available to any old 'heal skill' user. Treat conditions. Even resuscitate someone like breath of life at higher levels!)

Profession - Herbalist (plenty of support for this, just sort of a funky 'healer/alchemist' mashup, using healing herbs, poisons, and various other fun stuff like irritants and adhesives and slippery solutions.)

There's even some who take Spellcraft and Use Magic Device to absurd levels. We call them Wizards and Sorcerers. :)

I mean, this is a game system that used to have a class built around *Acrobatics,* so it'd be much more game-able to make classes built around stuff like smithing or alchemy!

[Megistone]

I for sure don't want to repeat the burnout I had when I started to write down my PF1 campaign, and had to stat a long series of NPCs. I got really bored really quickly.
To each their own I guess, but I'm glad that I have a way to do it differently now.