This is probably cheating, but here's what I do:
I just make npcs up on the fly. I know what the attack bonus for a 12th level barbarian should be (+8 str while raged, +12 bab, +3 weapon, for example: +23/+18/+13) approximately so I just kind of make them up as I need them.
A 7th level fighter in my notes might look like this:
"Ac 22, +15/+10, 2d6+9, Fort +9, Ref +4, Will +5, great cleave, combat ref and improved initiative"
I can have a 19th level wizard ready to go in a few minutes by figuring out his spell DCs, what type of magic he uses (necromancer, summoner, fireball-slinger, and illusionist/enchanter are my chief NPCs), what AC he has (29) and what buffs he has (mirror image, displacement and stoneskin).
It may seem unfair and inconsistent, but not obsessing over details or overplanning can give you the flexibility you need to make a game more or less challenging on the fly. I usually have at best a good idea of what the character is capable of -- their concept winds up being way more important (will they flee? barter? Will they let the PCs have an out if they get spanked? What cool and interesting methods do they use?).
A lot of GMs will simply have everything planned and statted out, but I find my players are often too good or too unlucky or too lucky for that to make a fun game. I find my willingness to fudge dierolls to make a better game makes an even better game when I can fudge stats or prepared spells or whatever.
I don't want you to think the game is entirely arbitrary based on my whims, but there is sometimes a little bit of that. I set obstacles, challenges, and so forth, of a certain approximate difficulty and then see what needs tweaking, mainly.
I just make npcs up on the fly. I know what the attack bonus for a 12th level barbarian should be (+8 str while raged, +12 bab, +3 weapon, for example: +23/+18/+13) approximately so I just kind of make them up as I need them.
A 7th level fighter in my notes might look like this:
"Ac 22, +15/+10, 2d6+9, Fort +9, Ref +4, Will +5, great cleave, combat ref and improved initiative"
I can have a 19th level wizard ready to go in a few minutes by figuring out his spell DCs, what type of magic he uses (necromancer, summoner, fireball-slinger, and illusionist/enchanter are my chief NPCs), what AC he has (29) and what buffs he has (mirror image, displacement and stoneskin).
It may seem unfair and inconsistent, but not obsessing over details or overplanning can give you the flexibility you need to make a game more or less challenging on the fly. I usually have at best a good idea of what the character is capable of -- their concept winds up being way more important (will they flee? barter? Will they let the PCs have an out if they get spanked? What cool and interesting methods do they use?).
A lot of GMs will simply have everything planned and statted out, but I find my players are often too good or too unlucky or too lucky for that to make a fun game. I find my willingness to fudge dierolls to make a better game makes an even better game when I can fudge stats or prepared spells or whatever.
I don't want you to think the game is entirely arbitrary based on my whims, but there is sometimes a little bit of that. I set obstacles, challenges, and so forth, of a certain approximate difficulty and then see what needs tweaking, mainly.
