(1) It assumes tactical inflexibility. It assumes that the monster should always do the exact same thing no matter what the PCs do. By saying "they'll only be around for 5 rounds so they should only have 5 rounds worth of stuff to do", you are concluding that they should never have multiple options (which would allow them to respond to a variety of situations).
I don't know about that. Could you be able to give some examples? Stat blocks might only have a few rounds worth of powers, but they do include the creature's ability modifiers, relevant skill, perception abilities and special senses, and movement capabilities. I would think that pretty much everything you need to respond to the various possible scenarios outside of combat - chase scenes, negotiations, trying to sneak past enemies, etc.
if you are talking about their ability to respond tactically in combat, I think that comes down to how the DM plays them. I certainly don't want each monster to have a seperate stat block for dealing with PCs using hit-and-run tactics vs direct combat - I think the DMs ability to use their movement and positioning, ranged attacks vs melee attacks, and various skills should be enough to play them differently in different scenarios.
(2) It assumes monsters will never be re-used. Because if they were going to be re-used, it might be valuable to have some variety between those encounters.
I really haven't had a problem with a lack of variety amongst enemies in 4E. I can see it being a problem if a DM just runs the same monsters against PCs in combat after combat, but with the options out there, the ability to customize monsters, and the opportunity to always fall back on stunts, terrain attacks, and even just grabs and the like... I think there is plenty of room to keep things interesting.
In my experience, at least, 4E provides far more variety in the encounters with far less work for the DM to make it happen. A dungeon filled with different types of kobolds is a lot more exciting than one filled with 50 kobold level 1 warriors.
(3) It assumes that multiple versions of the same monster will never appear in the same combat. Monsters only last 5 rounds and nothing they do outside of those 5 rounds matters? Even if we accept the premise, if we have an encounter with 5 of those monsters at the same time and each of them survives an average of 5 rounds, then that stat block actually needs to fill up 25 rounds worth of actions.
There are lots of reasons why combat in 4th Edition has gotten the "grind" level, but one of the problems are the shallow, bland, inflexible stat blocks.
Again, I see 4E stat blocks as potentially a lot more exciting than some have been in other editions. In my experience, monsters in 3rd Edition either tended to have issues, like you say, with inflexibility (in that their typically approach was to spend every round full-attacking), or they tended to have lots of complex spell-like abilities and similar options.
And the first type tended to be the ones you fought in groups.
Now, its true that this issue isn't entirely absent in 4E. If you have a fight with 5 Orc Raiders, it is likely going to come down to the same running around and charging throughout the fight.
Of course, 4E tries to actively discourage that sort of encounter design. And as soon as you've gotten to 2 or 3 different types of monsters in the fight - Orc Raiders, Drudges, and an Eye of Gruumsh - things start to get more interesting.
I agree that I don't like to see a stat block with only 1 or 2 attack options. It does make a monster dull. But that seems to have been more an issue with a handful of MM1 monsters than an overall goal - I see a lot more who have enough abilities to have options during the combat, though by the end of the fight PCs have generally gotten to see most of what the enemy can do.
Will all monsters be able to tactically respond to different approaches by the players? Of course not - and the same holds true in every edition. But some monsters certainly can. The vast majority of monster stat blocks, in my opinion, don't fit the claim of "shallow, bland, inflexible."
What Noonan said: "Until the moment they interact with the PCs, they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done."
I'm not sure what you think is being misrepresented here. The NPCs don't do anything until the PCs see them, as soon as the PCs see them combat will start, and "five rounds later, they're done".
It's a pretty damning quote. But I think it is indeed being misrepresented as an absolute.
I don't think he is saying that monsters cannot be interacted with outside of combat. The vast majority of the time, yes, combat is the default interaction - and that 95% of the time is what we need the stats for.
The article with that very quote even goes into the fact that part of the goal is to help focus on the key elements of the creatures in question, that "the play experience at the table is enhanced if the monster entry provides a few cogent details of culture to get the DM pointed in the right direction, then steps back and lets the table run off wherever it likes."
That seems explicitly counter to the idea that a monster's context is isolated only to its combat relevance.
More than that, let's look at a bit more of the quote:
"Giving a monster
detect thoughts or
telekinesis, for example, makes us feel like those monsters are magically in the minds of their minions and are making objects float across the room all the time. But they aren’t! Until the moment they interact with the PCs, they’re in a state of stasis. And five rounds later, they’re done."
He isn't saying that the monster should not have those abilities. The mind flayer mastermind can still be keeping his minions in thrall and plundering their minds all he wants out of combat. If the DM wants the creepy psionic monster to be in mental control of his minions, he just gets to decide that is the case - he does not need to know the actual mechanics of how these NPCs interact. He can simply take the natural flavor of the monster and extend it as desired to NPC interactions. Those mechanics that aren't important for interaction with the PCs aren't needed - they just distract from what actual options are on the table.
Now, here is where I see the heart of the actual debate - what abilities qualify as important against the PCs?
Detect Thoughts wasn't particularly relevant in combat, given it took several round to start picking up useful info. On the other hand, it does give the mastermind a potential edge out of combat against the PCs, which can have interesting ramifications - though its use could also be detected and expose the mastermind's threat.
Of course, just giving the monster Telepathy in 4E goes a good distance towards preserving the flavor, without needing to get into how much it can probe the mind of PCs out of combat. The more extreme 4E approach might be to simply have the DM decide how much information it can glean using its mental powers out of combat. Many might object to this as arbitrary - on the other hand, Detect Thoughts already had issues with that, since isn't the DM the one who has to decide what 'surface thoughts' the PCs might reveal anyway?
These corner cases are where I think the real disagreement lies. But I think it is missing the point to try and drag the argument down to the core principles of 4E based on a single quote by one designer, taken out of context.
You are saying the problem is that there is a flawed premise in 4E that monsters don't exist outside of combat. That they exist solely to be killed over the course of 5 rounds, and that as long as this premise exists, people will have an issue with stat blocks.
I don't agree that this is a premise in 4E. I don't think any designer would agree with your interpretation of Noonan's words. And I think focusing on them distracts from the real discussion - where to draw the line on what abilities are worth preserving, and which should fall into the realm of off-screen ability.
