I see that this distinction isn't necessary, and that the development towards consistent rules for generation is a reflection of a desire to harness mechanics to add to game-world consistency. This doesn't mean its metagame either; as I've said, these in game mechanics can be understood with internal logic and reflect the way the game world consistently works.
I don't see how forcing all the NPCs in your world into the mold of a few heroic archetypes creates any sort of internal logic or verisimilitude. It would be like running a super hero game and modeling all the people in the world as different sorts of super heroes. It just has no application to verisimilitude.
I think that you are saying two things; firstly that there needs to be a fundamental assumption that monsters and pcs follow different rules, because of their fundamental roles in the game, and their screen time; others might think that this is arbitrary. I'm not saying that that's a bad assumption at all, in fact I think it can be quite useful, but its not the only valid way.
Valid/invalid is just not a way you can measure things in games. I don't actually care if other people play the same way I do. I am only explaining the reasons why I find the way I've been playing to be successful and why I will purchase rules which work that way
I think your counter to this is that there are other ways to achieve the verisimilitude that classing monsters provides, which are far less work, but I think that the amount of work should'nt be an assumption or an argument against the question of whether 5ed should provide for monsters with class. It will be a new system, and we can hope that they might simplify the process. Complexity should not be an argument against or an assumption at all.
I can see no prospect that they will simplify anything. 4e's monsters are as simple as monsters can realistically ever be. Complexity with 4e monsters comes almost entirely in the form of how do they interact with the scenario and the PCs to produce good results. There is generally only the most basic complexity in the monsters, which can't be removed. The amount of work required should be THE PRIMARY factor considered. It is overwhelmingly the most relevant factor and any unbiased analysis of the topic must IMHO clearly and unequivocally come down on the side of non-class-based monsters/NPCs. Its not even a close contest. Likewise complexity is SURELY higher and absolutely a primary factor to be considered. Simplicity is always better, all other things being equal.
As for the verisimilitude argument. Again, I've advanced an argument, which hasn't been addressed, that using classes REDUCES the overall verisimilitude.
I think you are saying that you don't understand the need to have this option, and I think its because it can be used to add a level of verisimilitude within the world. I'm not sworn to any edition or whatever, and I have no agenda, but I can easily imagine how this is possible that people want this. There are many examples of how it can. What if the characters loot the half-fiend medusa wizard's spellbooks? what spells are in it?
What spells are in it if the DM makes it a 5e wizard? The ones the DM feels like putting there, just like if it isn't a classed monster at all! lol. The same is true in 4e. What is it about using a class that makes this any different? All it does is necessitate that the DM go through a specific process whereas in say 4e he can simply add what he needs to make things work in a cool way. A "half-fiend medusa" is nothing like a human/demi-human PC wizard. I'd think it would be highly likely they have a very different magic tradition, perhaps access to magical effects humans can't even reproduce, and certainly arcane knowledge unknown to humans. Such a creature will have a very different use for magic and a very different history from that of a human wizard. I see no reason why such a creature would resemble a wizard or be better represented with the rules for a human wizard. The same would be true of whatever treasure, items, consumables, rituals, etc that said creature might have.
I mean, sure, you could argue that if the party runs into an elf wizard adventurer like themselves that there might be some level of verisimilitude to be had by using PC rules. OTOH even then IMHO the Companion Character rules in 4e work well. If some issue comes up where it would be sensible to go beyond that (IE a PC gets hold of the elf's ritual book) then you can always flesh things out.
I realise that any argument that can be provided can easily be countered, and examples of how it can work without the 'bother' of classing up monsters, but if we take away the assumption of effort required, I think it can be seen why some folk want this option, and that they are understood and quite valid.
But taking away the effort required, which no system is going to eliminate, is unrealistic. While I've had people STATE that "it has more verisimilitude" I really haven't heard a convincing argument for that, nor have I heard a convincing counter for the "it has LESS verisimilitude" argument. I'll state that again. NPCs are not heroic adventurers (in most cases) and thus there's no increase in verisimilitude in having them use rules meant for PC adventurers. In my view the fantasy world is not filled with fighters, rogues, and wizards. It is pretty much filled with ordinary people. SOME of those people have considerable fighting skill, knowledge of magic, etc. Those skills and knowledge are probably different, more specialized to their non-adventuring needs, etc than the sorts of things that PCs generally get.
There is of course OVERLAP, but an NPC fighter probably learned most of his skills by practice, maybe dueling, maybe fighting in a war or two, etc. He's never fought monsters, never engaged in small unit tactics, and probably fights in a fairly restricted and conventional way. Translation, he's got 3-5 powers he can employ with his weapon of choice. He may be quite good with that weapon and a really formidable fighter, but he doesn't know all the feats and fancy stuff that the PCs have learned. He doesn't have that heroic something that lets a PC use APs and shake off damage again and again. He's tough and dangerous but he's an NPC, not a PC, not a Weaponmaster or a Slayer, just a "human guard" or "human knight" or whatever. Using this system I can now make characters with all different sorts of fighting background, plus other skills in whatever mix makes sense based on that NPC's history and story, which is different from the PCs and non-heroic, generally. That's the verisimilitude argument IMHO.
Anyway, its OK, there are two (or more) camps on this subject, we're unlikely to all ever agree. I have nothing against the opposite opinion, I just don't agree with it. I probably never will.
