Quote Originally Posted by OldTrees1 View Post
The difference is:
One perspective writes a paragraph in the Monster Manual about adding class levels to monsters. Then writes 5 pages of support for the [purportedly] better / easier method.
The other writes a paragraph in the Monster Manual telling you monsters can't have class levels. Then writes 5 pages of support for the [purportedly] better / easier method.

Basically they know their style, but are they shutting down the other style, or still including it just in case?
Okay, now I'm really confused. Are we still talking about what's controversial w/rt this thread, or about the opinions of hypothetical WotC employees in a universe where the 5E books have been written with less support for NPCs with character classes? E.g. no NPC-only subclasses like Oathbreaker in the DMG. Because if you have to go that far out in the hypotheticals to find a distinction, that isn't a meaningful distinction: it's accurate to describe them as claiming you should never use NPCs with class levels.

While we're at it, if we're measuring "better" by page count, 300+ pages on creating (N)PCs with character classes certainly trumps 5 pages on creating them by fiat.