Sages and Specialists

[moosher12]

Megistone wrote:

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.

This I gotta agree. I burned out trying to build and buff every character in Rise of the Runelords. This practice should not be universal, ever.

But, I do think there is room for it on occasion. And with this point, I wanna put my thoughts out. So I apologize as this is less of a direct response to you, and more just using you as a springboard to get my real take on OP's post out.

Sometimes I want to be able to deliberately build NPCs at a higher detail than a quick stat block, for very important NPCs. For unimportant NPCs, I want quick build systems that closely match the math of the build process.

That's what I like about Pathfinder 2E, if I wanna build an important wizard character, I just build a wizard as if they were a PC. If I want a wizard shop clerk who would only show up once, actual skill implications are not important, I'd use the GM Core build guide. But there is a weird niche use that's in between, where I might want to make a loyal NPC companion, say a traveling chef that levels up with the party, perhaps a few levels behind, or even a few levels ahead.

We already have a concept of a non-combative level. So non-combative classes with non-combative levels might have their use, where they scale greatly in matters of Lore, but have much smaller growth in matters of martial prowess. Like a scholar class, a craftsman class, a laborer class, a navigator class, a merchant Class etc.

I have HEAVY doubts it would be the case, But the NPC Core would be a good opportunity to add such classes. I can even see a use case for players, of allowing PCs to take multiclass archetypes of such non-combat classes if they wanted to better specialize in a trade. I know I have a few crazy players who would consider such an archetype, where one of them crazy enough I can see them unironically using such a class directly, despite inevitable warnings.

The core point is, I think it's possible to have both. If the math of the quick build is close enough to a detail build that it would not hurt a meta much, I frankly don't see a problem with adding classes, on the condition that they are not expected to be used on all NPCs. Because as you said. It will lead to burnout.

[Ryangwy]

I think there's a difference between having a full class and a few poachable abilities. A full class nobody uses (and that is balanced for PC assumptions) is a total waste of page space. A skill-focused archetype that can have it's feats reused as NPC abilities has a lot more value.

But, like... we have those already? There's a Wandering Chef archetype, crafting in general has so many archetypes (Alchemist, Inventor, Talisman Dabbler, Snarecaster and so on) that even if the specific item category doesn't have one you really shouldn't have any issue making, say, a brewer NPC. If a concept is intellectual in nature, you could use spells to represent it - Eldritch Researcher and Oatia Skysage comes to mind as templates for that. Heck, there's plenty of weird NPCs with bespoke profession abilities turned combat trick, like the Hellbound Attorney.

There really doesn't need to be a book to do all this. Maybe a 3rd party supplement.

[Ruzza]

As someone who makes a lot of NPC stat blocks (and made a ton more in PF1), building out an NPC like a monster is so very much more freeing. Like...

moosher12 wrote:

But there is a weird niche use that's in between, where I might want to make a loyal NPC companion, say a traveling chef that levels up with the party, perhaps a few levels behind, or even a few levels ahead.

This is just an NPC that I stat out like a monster. I can even have some fun with it and give them an ability like "[Reaction] I've Eaten You Before! Trigger: An ally within 30 feet uses a Recall Knowledge check on an animal you have cooked with. Effect: Roll Cooking Lore to Aid the check."

Like, I can't remember the last time I've built an NPC using PC rules because I have never, ever needed the multitude of options that a PC has on an NPC. To make an NPC stand out, I've only ever needed one or two abilities to sell their personality along with a handful of skills. This is something that's already handled beautifully in the system. I can't really imagine there would be dedicated page space for "a class that PCs should not use" because that's fairly antithetical to how PF2 has been designed.

[moosher12]

The thing you are not addressing, is yes. You can level up an NPC, but the NPC design system is not designed for leveling up. It's designed for making a static stat block that stays at a single level. It works brilliantly for that use, but not so great for other uses.

Let me create an example. You give the party, say an assistant NPC, that gradually levels with the party. And let's say they start at level 1. We'll make them a driver. With some light small utilities on the side, and maybe basic proficiency with a weapon or two. Meant to be a guide for the party, a very competent driver, isn't completely useless if he has to fight, but should not be relied on in one.

For every level, I have to consult 10 different tables. Potentially 12, if I wanted to give them a small amount of spell casting. That's 200-240 table consultations over the course of an NPCs progression from 1-20.

That's referencing 10-12 tables, up to 20 times. This system works on the scale of a character that's expected to not grow, and is seen once and passed by.

But some characters are not. Kingmaker, for example, has NPCs that stick with the party. How are they built? Like PCs. But some parties don't want a scaling PC that can fight. Sometimes they want a scaling PC that is good at utility things. A dedicated magic craftsman, a driver, a cook, a salesman, etc. You are absolutely right, it can be done, and it should be done for a one off character, but you are incorrect in thinking it's an optimal solution for every NPC type.

I also think Ryangwy is overestimating the size of such a class. It does not have to be as dense as a PC class. 6 pages can honestly probably do the job. 2 pages for core abilities, and 4 pages for common feats (More practically feats would probably kick in in 1.5 to 1.6 pages). When I imagine an NPC class, I don't think it needs to be as dense as a PC class to get important ideas across. Since it's largely an NPC class, it does not need extra fluff based around ideologies of class playstyle or a splash art page.

Ryangwy is however correct in exerting that this probably has more place as a 3rd party book. I even said myself, I heavily doubt Paizo would do it, as the only book that has room for such a concept would be NPC Core, which I doubt they'd do. I simply wanted to assert that I as a GM would see value in it, and would consider buying such a book. I mean, I'm seeing demand, I'm half tempted toward taking a crack at it myself.

[Castilliano]

Except presumably you've already made the choices for each of those tables, i.e. high this, low that, so all you're doing is moving one notch higher and filling in the blanks. You'd have to fill in those same blanks if you used a PC/PC-like system. It's reading a chart X times vs. doing basic math X times. Both are non-issues.

And the current NPC system doesn't require equipment (from where??) to maintain the math, nor suffer the aftereffects of a treasure surge should the NPC die.

Meanwhile, a creature of X level, NPC class or not, has meaning. What does "Level 8 Driver" mean? With the current split levels, it means they're a level 8 obstacle when say in a race vs. PCs or level 8 assistant/boon for PCs if helping them drive/race/et al. You also know their other level for when they are as a combatant. That's about as straightforward as it can be.
But with an NPC system, what's that single number re: level denote? Sure, they're a level 8 Driver, but how does that translate into combat? That shouldn't be consistent, should it? Not all equally good drivers will fight equally, one would think. Would they be worth level 8 XP? Count as a level 8 ally in combat?

And you'd need a ridiculous number of feats into the highest levels. What does a high-level feat look like for a stripped down creature? How many will they accumulate, making running them more and more complex? (As well as building from scratch that much more of a headache.)

[moosher12]

Castilliano wrote:

And you'd need a ridiculous number of feats into the highest levels. What does a high-level feat look like for a stripped down creature? How many will they accumulate, making running them more and more complex? (As well as building from scratch that much more of a headache.)

I don't think you need many feats. An NPC class built this way, only needs PC style level advancement, but it does not need PC-level complexity, if that makes sense. a, driver NPC, for example, probably does not need 10 unique feats. At least, that's how I'd envision it.

All it really needs. Since I used the driver as an example, I'll refer to a name I dropped, the Navigator. A navigator, for example, might be a specialist in vehicles. A specific vehicle type can be a subclass. Spitballing a few loose concepts (this is whiteboard level spitballing, it of course, will not be a perfect solution, but just a starting approach), it might have trained proficiency in simple weapons, that might not ever grow (and to reflect the fact they are not for fighting, it might have a penalty to trained weapons to reflect the math of the NPC Core/GameMastery Guide). Might have at best light armor proficiency. And it might have a select Driving Lore skill as their free skill, scaling automatically to Legendary, maybe with a moderate number of extra skills to learn. It would have access to ancestry, skill, and general feats, of course.

But as for class feats. Class feats could focus on more targeted things. They might be used to reduce the aforementioned penalty to weapon proficiencies. They can give special abilities that apply to the theme. Feats that give you boosts to do risky maneuvers, seperate from the trick driver feat. Feats to expedite the time, feats to better deal with working animals, feats to help manage a crew when using a vehicle cooperatively, to help optimize paths from point A to point B, to avoid getting lost, to travel in such a way that the chances of a random encounter might be reduced, etc.

I also don't think you need a feat range of 1-20. Such a class can be heavily front-loaded, where most feats are Level 1, for example. It's more for GMs, after all. So there is not so much pressure that such a class gets very wow-worthy abilities.

I agree, if you thought I meant something as complex as a PC class in terms of volume of options, I agree that's overkill. I guess as another way to think of it. Something lighter than a class, but heavier than an archetype.

[Ryangwy]

But why do you need a class with proficiencies and everything? What merit is there to printing so much niche, specific junk (because look, it's junk, you're describing skill feats and math fixers as class feats) and slap it onto a terrible chassis, so that you can... avoid looking up the monster stat by level chart (and instead look up a completely different chart)?

Like, seriously, you described a bunch of Survival skill feats (several of which are peculiar to a specific subsystem you have in your head, like the random encounter one). You made a bespoke mechanic to create a worse than PC proficiency growth to avoid looking at a simple chart.

I've built NPCs in systems that do identical PC/NPC advancement (WoD and 3.5e) and your suggestion would be terrible even by those systems' standards, let alone PF2e.

[moosher12]

One man's junk is another's treasure. OP is making a post for it. I know I'd buy such a book. Just because it does not appeal to you does not make it junk. It is also rudely dismissive to simply put down what people would like to see as junk.

Frankly I did not think of it before OP made the post, but when I read it, I thought, "Yeah, I'd want to buy that. There is a usecase about the vanilla system that lowkey frustrated me that this would remedy."

It is quite frustrating when I say "I have a use case for this. I would buy it." and people say, "Well you can just do the thing you lowkey are annoyed with instead of that"

[Ryangwy]

I'm saying that even for the usecase you've described, your proposal is insufficient. Your proposed class will get, what a dozen level 1 class feats that are skill feats? It has a completely bespoke proficiency because you're trying to match PC proficiency to the NPC proficiency chart?

It's not 'a book of profession specific content is junk', it's 'making deliberately bad class chassis with deliberately underpowered class feats is junk'. The two are distinct. Remember, all classes are still performing math operations involving level on attacks, saves and skills. It is not particularly easier to make a level 4 rogue PC with appropriate gear than a level 4 NPC with sneak attack, battle medicine and a +1 striking rapier.

Print skill feats as skill feats, archetypes as archetypes, and provide a recommendation for which columns in building creatures to use, that's what I'd recommend.

[yellowpete]

It's not 10-12 tables, it's a single one. Even if you really needed your driver to exactly be able to drive like a 10th-level creature, shoot like a 6th level creature and have the survivability of a 3rd level creature, you could literally do it on the fly by reading a couple of numbers off the creature table on the gm screen. It's a matter of a minute at most to record the relevant values.
There is no use case where mathematically generating these changes out of a prewritten class system is somehow easier or faster with comparable flexibility. It's better that it not exist, not only to save time for the creation of more important products but also to not mislead GMs into thinking that this kind of process is needed to make 'proper' NPCs.

[apeironitis]

moosher12 wrote:

For every level, I have to consult 10 different tables. Potentially 12, if I wanted to give them a small amount of spell casting. That's 200-240 table consultations over the course of an NPCs progression from 1-20.

That's referencing 10-12 tables, up to 20 times. This system works on the scale of a character that's expected to not grow, and is seen once and passed by.

How is that more complicated than:

*consulting a level progression table to see what new features the character gets in the new level
*raising every stat with at least trained proficiency by 1
*raising their attributes
*calculating the new hit points based on ancestry, class, constitution modifier and circumstantial feats
*picking new feats (and spells), most of which will rarely come up
*upgrading the characters' equipment so that they don't fall behind in terms of numbers?

I get the appeal of building NPCs like PCs. I like creating characters in Pathbuilder that I'll probably never get the chance to play from time to time. But as a method, it's nor worth it compared to the current rules for creating NPCs.

[Trip.H]

I agree it does not need a whole book, but a big, full page 1-20 chart on expected NPC core stats, proficiency, saves, etc, *plus* a procedure for overriding those stats via PC charts for their personal profession/specialty would be very useful.

That structure would have enabled the AP writer to give Ot a "Combat L4" while also having the spellcasting proficiency of a proper Magaambyan professor. (again, he's only trained, w/ low Arcane, and maxes at R2 slots. Meanwhile, a rejected student who instead became a professional crafter/alchemist and never studied magic, casts R4 spells as an expert.)

.

This level split method could, at most, take a min longer than using the base "single level" method (if we got that big chart).

And again, this is not some wild idea of a few forum nitpickers.
The book directly states that the GM will want to have NPCs with a "Non-Combat Level" that mismatches their core level. The book spends plenty of text explaining exactly what people here are attempting to communicate, but are getting shot down with "do you really need that?" type defections.

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. ...

The book explains why the GM will want to do it, but never outlines a simple procedure, nor takes the time to present a 1-20 stat chart to list what the "combat/core level" of NPCs actually *is*. (and we know Paizo must use one internally for their own design).

And again, this split-level issue is actually pretty big for immersion. Allowing NPCs to have high professions, especially spellcasters, while still having low "Combat Level" is huge for addressing the party's "shouldn't we be getting someone else to fight this?" problem. It means the GM can actually allow a lower level party to access a Resurrection-capable caster. Rituals in general are very good GM/town tools in the hands of NPCs, except for the "why isn't the high level NPC doing anything about the coming doom?" issue.

Without the use of higher-casting NPCs, magics basically become party-only. How many times have you honestly seen post-L5 casters learning spells from NPCs? (not dead foe spellbooks)

Even when everyone at the table knew it was "story-fiat" for our party to be the only ones in the Abomination Vaults, so much so that the topic was talked about over the table, it was still brought up multiple times as a joke/punching bag. ("You're from Absalom, what's the deal with this Pathfinder Society? We warned everyone we could about Belcora's plan to destroy Absalom, they must be a bunch of charlatans to be sitting *this* out.")

It would certainly take a while, but if the default assumption from players was that NPCs use split-level stats, it would go a looooong way to reducing that dissonance.

[Teridax]

While I do personally believe it's better to stat out NPCs differently from PCs, I'm surprised by the sheer amount of vitriol this discussion appears to have generated from what seems like a small handful of people very intent on telling others they're a bad GM and a bad person for wanting to build their NPCs a bit differently from what's in GM Core. None of you are going to get your point across by dismissing out of hand the concerns of the OP and others who share their perspective, nor by browbeating them into submission.

FWIW, I also think the idea of NPC "feats" has merit, and some degree of precedent in the form of monster abilities. I don't think it needs to take the form of feats specifically, but there's plenty of room for more monster abilities aimed at certain types of NPCs, so that it becomes very easy to plug those abilities onto a template and very quickly have a character that can do interesting things. The OP specifically asked for NPCs you'd find in a settlement to be able to do things the adventuring party cannot, and that to me sounds like the perfect opportunity for a supplement, official or not, that lists tons of "monster abilities" that could easily be attached to low-level townsfolk in order to flesh them out. On the subject of more templates, I would say there's also room for more templates beyond just the class road maps we've been given, so that we could have NPC "classes" like the Adept or Expert mentioned in the OP. Not every such template needs to be made for combat classes, and there's plenty of room for templates that cover characters with mostly out-of-combat functions, like farmers, teachers, magistrates, and so on.

All of this is to say: although I disagree with statting NPCs out like PCs, the OP has a point. The people advocating for easier ways to kit out NPCs, whether through NPC classes or feats, have a point. In fact, Paizo seems to think these people have a point too, which is why we're getting a NPC Core book early next year. It even seems to propose many of the things that are being advocated for, and that several have dismissed as "pointless" or "junk":

NPC Core wrote:

Devotees of the gods, cunning mercenaries, fun-loving performers, crafty engineers, devious villains and more all have roles in your game with the Pathfinder NPC Core! Over 250 stat blocks for NPCs let you drop all kinds of characters into your game, from servants and farmers to masters of magic and martial arts. The NPCs are crafted to be fun and easy to use, with sets of adjustments to quickly change their ancestry, level, and more. You'll also find a trove of NPCs specific to non-human ancestries, like a dwarf general, goblin get-gang, and kobold egg guardian. Each section of NPCs is themed, and includes lore, custom rules, and random tables to spice up your gameplay. Never find yourself making up statistics on the fly again—you can find everything you need in the Pathfinder NPC Core!

Emphasis added to the bits especially relevant to this discussion. I hope that when those who have dismissed, condescended, and insulted the OP and other like-minded individuals pick up that book, let alone apply the templates and adjustments therein, they will be able to reflect upon their actions on this thread and ask themselves whether theirs was truly the right way to behave. Perhaps this is asking for too much self-awareness on these forums, but one can only hope, and if nothing else I do think the OP will be able to find what they're looking for in that upcoming book, whose contents will benefit us all.

[QuidEst]

... Huh? Maybe I'm misreading something, but the NPC Core's features sound entirely different than what the OP was asking for. It's providing quick adjustments, not a big menu of features to build NPCs from scratch like PCs. The OP wanted blacksmiths to have blacksmith features that out-blacksmith PCs. Being able to change ancestries and levels quickly is very different from that.

And yeah, the NPC Core is going to be providing lots of things like quick blacksmiths who have unique blacksmith abilities. It's doing it in the way that folks were generally suggesting: level- appropriate stats and one or two unique abilities, the same as monsters.

[Teridax]

QuidEst wrote:

It's providing quick adjustments, not a big menu of features to build NPCs from scratch like PCs.

"Over 250 stat blocks" that emulate common NPC types and their abilities sounds exactly like what the OP is asking for. I'm curious to know where you got the "build NPCs from scratch" bit from, because that's not something the OP has ever said in this discussion.

QuidEst wrote:

The OP wanted blacksmiths to have blacksmith features that out-blacksmith PCs. Being able to change ancestries and levels quickly is very different from that.

And yeah, the NPC Core is going to be providing lots of things like quick blacksmiths who have unique blacksmith abilities.

Who says these unique blacksmith abilities won't be able to do things the PCs can't? We already have plenty of examples of NPCs who have abilities inaccessible to the PCs, so I don't see any reason to assume that literally no such ability introduced in NPC core will achieve a similar effect.

QuidEst wrote:

It's doing it in the way that folks were generally suggesting: level- appropriate stats and one or two unique abilities, the same as monsters.

But that's not what folks are commonly decreeing, not suggesting here, which is that the game supposedly does all of this already via the GM Core rules for building creatures, and that asking for more or something different is pointless or flat-out "junk". Most of the people arguing here do not seem to be even aware of NPC Core's existence, and the two other people who brought up the upcoming sourcebook used it to advocate for something similar to what the OP is asking for.

[Perses13]

Moosher's pitch sounds to me like a more complicated version of 5e's sidekick rules, which is something I wouldn't mind seeing a PF2 version of.

[QuidEst]

Teridax wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

It's providing quick adjustments, not a big menu of features to build NPCs from scratch like PCs.

"Over 250 stat blocks" that emulate common NPC types and their abilities sounds exactly like what the OP is asking for. I'm curious to know where you got the "build NPCs from scratch" bit from, because that's not something the OP has ever said in this discussion.

I'm getting it from the request for NPC classes. You use a class to build something from scratch like a PC. To me, a bunch of pre-made NPCs sound very far from the request, which is why I didn't bring up the book.

Teridax wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

The OP wanted blacksmiths to have blacksmith features that out-blacksmith PCs. Being able to change ancestries and levels quickly is very different from that.

And yeah, the NPC Core is going to be providing lots of things like quick blacksmiths who have unique blacksmith abilities.

Who says these unique blacksmith abilities won't be able to do things the PCs can't? We already have plenty of examples of NPCs who have abilities inaccessible to the PCs, so I don't see any reason to assume that literally no such ability introduced in NPC core will achieve a similar effect.

Yeah, I assume they will too. It was more a case of being puzzled by the bolding choice focusing on levels and ancestries.

Teridax wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

It's doing it in the way that folks were generally suggesting: level- appropriate stats and one or two unique abilities, the same as monsters.

But that's not what folks are commonly decreeing, not suggesting here, which is that the game supposedly does all of this already via the GM Core rules for building creatures, and that asking for more or something different is pointless or flat-out "junk". Most of the people arguing here do not seem to be even aware of NPC Core's existence, and the two other people who brought up the upcoming sourcebook used it to advocate for something similar to what the OP is asking for.

I'm definitely aware of it, it just didn't seem like what was being asked for (a bunch of specific NPCs instead of generalized NPC classes). I imagine that it might be the case for others. The NPC Core does the work of using the GM Core method for you, so I took recommending one to effectively be part-and-parcel with recommending the other. I guess I'm getting a very different read on the original request than you?

[Teridax]

QuidEst wrote:

I'm getting it from the request for NPC classes. You use a class to build something from scratch like a PC. To me, a bunch of pre-made NPCs sound very far from the request, which is why I didn't bring up the book.

It sounds like you've made a lot of assumptions based on zero concrete evidence, then. In fact, reading the OP again, it sounds like you assumed the exact opposite of what they're asking for:

Broken Gods wrote:

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.

Sounds like what they're asking for is NPCs that are ready to do their thing out of the box and are tailor-made for specific functions, much like the NPC templates we're set to get. If you knew about NPC Core, why not at least bring it up as a genuine suggestion?

QuidEst wrote:

Yeah, I assume they will too. It was more a case of being puzzled by the bolding choice focusing on levels and ancestries.

The bolding choice is there to highlight how these NPC templates are set to be easy to have their level adjusted, much like what the OP wanted:

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.

Given how OP has expressly stated that they're still coming to grips with 2e's rules, this ought to be an opportunity to try to understand the spirit of what they're saying, instead of haranguing them on the letter as has so far been the norm.

QuidEst wrote:

I'm definitely aware of it, it just didn't seem like what was being asked for (a bunch of specific NPCs instead of generalized NPC classes). I imagine that it might be the case for others. The NPC Core does the work of using the GM Core method for you, so I took recommending one to effectively be part-and-parcel with recommending the other. I guess I'm getting a very different read on the original request than you?

I don't think this is a question of reading, I think this is a question of how we choose to treat each other on this space. Some people, like Trip.H or moosher12, read what OP had to say, looked beyond OP's stated relative inexperience with 2e, and tried to empathize with their wants in order to find common ground. Others, who I won't name, saw this as an opportunity to dunk on OP and those other people for brownie points, dismiss them completely without first trying to understand where they were coming from, and devalue their wants completely in a manner that itself demonstrates complete ignorance of the very existence of NPC Core, which does in fact look to cater to the OP and others who similarly want easy ways of really fleshing out NPCs. If OP's intent was unclear, you could have simply asked them to clarify, which no-one did.

[Perpdepog]

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.

I like doing this with some bad guys, particularly those who are intended to be too powerful at a certain point, but the party know they'll be meeting again.

"This could be you, and it will be. Then you can kick this villain's teeth in."

[Broken Gods]

I don't imagine it has to be an all-or-nothing endeavor. I have attempted to create the NPC classes for Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat, Soldier, Acolyte, Adept, Cultist, Thug, Scholar, and Scout for levels 1 through 10. However, I don't plan on using them in most cases. I think most NPCs only require a quick build. Some NPCs might need a more complete build from the earliest moments, and other NPCs may develop into a more complete build.
Players of every level should be aware that there are NPCs (PC or NPC classes) that excel and they can respect. It is a part of many great stories that the hero/heroine finds a mentor. Some font of wisdom or experience beyond what the player can access. Some NPCs are worth investing in. In the end, there is a reason the players are doing things that the NPCs can not. Lower-level NPCs that have been fully fleshed out can also add an interesting dynamic if the party comes to adore them and wants to protect them.

Now that I have retired from the military and finished college, I will invest more time in learning the rules of the system.

v/r
Broken Gods