What it means is, there are a certain subset of DMs including you two who forgive the devs for much anything with the general argument you the DM can fix it, often specifically referring to the monster's INT score.
I don't buy that argument.
Most DM's don't consider it a solution to draw out fights to extremes, and they're not willing to wrack their brains, just to overcome deficiencies in stat blocks.
For you guys, there's no weakness in a stat block you're ready to pin on the devs, if you can spend hours treating it as an interesting challenge to be overcome. I would not have had any problem with that if you hadn't argued as if every DM is ready to make that investment.
Over in the real world, though, I have news for you: either the monster works right out the box for it's pre-planned purpose, or I get to criticize the devs for their weak mushy monster stat-up skills.
It is by now completely evident that monsters in the Monster Manual simply weren't written with all the goodies available in the PHB in mind. That is, they're mostly sad sacks of HP; every ability with the potential to challenge the players being written off because they could also make the players lose, and we can't have that.
What I refuse to do, is to stay silent with the dismissive argument "you're just not spending enough time and effort on playing the monsters smart"
Not only is that blaming the DM, it is letting WotC off the hook.
I will not have it.
I know for a fact monsters work much better in both 3E and now PF2. Your argument, that it's the DM not working hard enough, is easily trashed, when you try a game where devs actually make their homework and actually try providing monsters with abilities that interact with those of the heroes: confounding them, negating them, or forcing the heroes to use alternative strategies.
"What it means is, there are a certain subset of DMs including you two who forgive the devs for much anything with the general argument you the DM can fix it, often specifically referring to the monster's INT score."
While you go on to some length and make claims about "dismissive" arguments, this leads off your post and is pretty dismisive.
While you complain about the weakness or deficiency in stat blocks, your scores of gnolls exsmple serms to ignore the gnolls stat blocks where the default CR 1/2 gnoll which has longbows right there just like it has an Int that is above that of common predators and a wisdom of standard human level.
Gnolls by the score was your chosen live play example, right ?
"I tried to throw about seventy gnolls against a party containing a Cleric, some with javelins, some with melee weapons (this was in the Underdark). They died by the score. The cleric did have to make a number of Concentration saves. The others acted in various unmemorable ways. Then the Cleric won the game. The End."
Just a note as you go on about how "there's no weakness in a stat block you're ready to pin on the devs," and somehow blaming the GM... the actual 5e stat block for gnolls lists longbows, spears and bites, so in fact if you chose a GM to remove the longbows, replace them with javelins and thus force the gnolls into close proximity - that's not a deficit of thec5e dev's stat block, tight? That is literally a GM change, right?
That's just part of the logic breakdown there of your position as presented using your example.
You claim things about extreme examples of complicated play, bemoaning the purpose of the creature as presented but we are literally just looking at the monster as presented and what it has and using it.
You claim it's some fault in the design when the DMG makes it clear right there in its encounter building that numbers of much lower CR should not even be considered for threat assessment unless the GM sees they can contribute. Its right here, part of the expected designed outcome, not an oops.
Your argument that you so non-silently want to put forth seems based on some beliefs you have that are simply not rooted in the actual information wuthin or expectations of 5e.
DMs are expected to run NPCs. How a DM chooses to do that will affect the outcomes. It's part of the difference between a TTRPG and a CRPG where hoards of AI driven "adds" might rush into an AoE.
You are entitled to your positions of vourse, but this post here is far from compelling or consistent or even, in my opinion, solid on either logical or factual basis.
Oh well, if your goal us to be convincing, this seemed to fail. If your goal was to put forth a rational argument that follows from experience to actual rule to conclusion, this seems to fail.
If your goal is something else... hard to say.
