Well, I would hope this rules-as-physics approach died with 3e*.
Where I see the rules as nothing but physics, in that if element x works in a particular way here then for consistency reasons it must also work in that way here, there, and everywhere else unless there is some factor forcing it not to.
Not just because PC-class NPCs are a female dog to run in combat in 3e, 4e (the worst) or 5e. The whole approach is just horribly constraining and leads to all those Silver Age Dragon "NPC Classes", replacing the older (eg 1e DMG) approach of just saying "OK he's a Sage/Thug/Whatever, here's what he needs to fulfil his role".
Except that "what he needs to fulfill his role" can almost always be mapped to either adventuring-PC class abilities or to a very few archetypal non-adventuring NPC "classes" (of which Sage is one) that are pretty easy to design - and only have to be designed once. I've done it this way since forever and I don't find it constraining at all...or if it is I've successfully managed to avoid noticing such for all these years.
That said, I don't subscribe to the 3e line of thought where essentially everyone has a class of some sort - 5th-level commoner, 4th-level merchant, etc.
I don't use mentored-training-to-level in any of my games. but of course there are lots of NPCs who identify as Paladins, Rangers (99% non-casting!), Wizards etc in my game and likely have some elements in common with the PC classes (except the Rangers!)
If I've detailed their combat stats at all, in 99.5% of cases that's not going to be using extremely finickety PC-build rules that (a) are designed to reward players for levelling (b) are a pain to record and use
and (c) often include stuff I actively DO NOT WANT most NPCs of that in-world role to have, such as Druid Wildshaping & Ranger spellcasting.
Where I just assume that such things come with the territory. If a Druid gets high enough level to wildshape then it can wildshape; ditto Rangers and casting (though in both cases 5e as written gives these abilities much sooner than I do). And very rarely do I actually have to fully stat out these NPCs...in fact, the only times it's really needed are when one or more of the following is true:
- the NPC is joining the party as an adventurer
- the NPC is joining the party as a hench
- the NPC is intended to be (or already is) a direct foe of the PCs to the point where I'll need to run it in combat (e.g. one adventuring party vs. another)
- the NPC is integral to the plot e.g. someone found in a dungeon cell where it's uncertain what the interaction will be with the PCs (these stats are usually given in the adventure module)
Otherwise, just a vague idea will do. As an example, in my current campaign there's been something of a mentor figure hovering around for ages. I know his race (vampire, was human), his class (necromancer), a fair bit about his history, and have rough ideas on his stats (very high int and cha, so-so wis and dex, etc.) and spells - but despite his having interacted with PCs several dozen times now I've never fully statted him out, because I haven't needed to.
Now if for some reason the PCs decide to attack him someday I'll have to stat him out as at that point I'll need a much more granular level of knowledge about what makes him tick. Till then, however? Not gonna bother.
Most notably a Retainer/Henchman NPC can easily transition to being a full PC. I think 5e complexity is just about low enough that players could run PC-class Retainers who could become replacement PCs, I
think that is the only case where I'd consider using PC rules for NPCs (I think I've once statted out an nPC using PC Champion Fighter rules as she was a fellow adventurer & peer of the PCs operating alongside
them. Still felt like wasted effort when she died at level 3).
I thought char-gen in 5e was supposed to be simple...?
I don't find consistency to be an issue at all. The rules - any rules - are already only a very partial representation of the game world, there to facilitate player interaction with the world. In-world, wounds don't magically heal overnight, whereas people do get sucking chest wounds and die slowly and painfully over hours, or get crippled and maimed in combat, losing limbs etc. The rules don't simulate that, and nor should they IMO.
Actually, yes they should - lingering disease, lingering wound, and slow death rules are sadly lacking not just from 5e but from all editions of D&D, and I see this as a bug rather than a feature. I've once or twice tried coming up with my own versions, but haven't ever managed anything I'd be happy with. The only things we do have that work are tables for lingering scars, which - if severe enough - can affect one's base stats (usually dex or cha), and something we call 'incurability' where if you get hurt badly enough (go below 0, we have death at -10) healing of any sort beyond what's needed to get you above 0 has extremely limited if any effect until some time has passed - how much time is based on how far below 0 you went.
I would never have anything like 5e's all-wounds-heal-overnight in any game I run, even for the PCs. In my game an overnight rest gets you back 1/10 of your total h.p. rounding any fractions up (thus if your full h.p. is 52 a good night's rest will get you back 6); which means you either bring a healer, or you take it slow and easy and do a lot of resting between battles.
Lan-"glad to give more details on how our incurability system works if asked"-efan