Neonchameleon
Legend
Indeed, the old school assumption is that monsters exist for a different reason than player characters, and thus are designed differently. And specifically, the short expected lifespan of a monster is a large part of that difference.
The old school assumption was there for a reason. For one thing, balance between asymmetric individuals or groups (and yes, even 4e characters are highly asymetric) is only a meaningful concept if you say what they are balanced for. 3e does not, and therefore the balance is entirely and obviously screwed up because the very game itself is not sure what they are balancing.
If you only ever use monsters for short battles, than they can be balanced on that basis and it will work. However, if that is not the case, it doesn't work.
Indeed. But if you balance for something else then the short battles balance does not work. As in D&D the overwhelming majority of antagonists are used in short battles, this is the most sensible thing to balance the game for. Almost no NPCs get used in the same way PCs do, therefore balancing them as PCs is almost pointless and should at best be a subsidiary rating.
While humans, cats, golems, angels, and dragons are very different creatures, they all need to be built and advanced in the same manner.
Um... why?
In this regard, 3e was a step forward from 2e, and 3.5 was a step forward from 3.0 (and PF hasn't done anything and 4e goes off the rails and 5e is not entirely back on them). There's still work to be done in this area.
Or rather 3e went off the rails and, as in so many other ways, 4e reverted back to the much more useful previous version because it works and is genuinely useful.