1/2 HP, 3/4 HP, -20%HP, +1/2 level etc --> why not this

[enigma5915]

In the 4E games I run I had given +1/2 level to damage to monsters and PCs. That was ok, but players had issues remembering ther +1/2 lvl and it favored multiple attacks and AOE attacks. My current method is to set monsters at 3/4 HP and have mosters do +1/2 lvl dam. The work is all on me now and the players dont have extra stuff to forget. This extra work for me as the DM is negligable. This has worked perfectly in practice and I highly rcomend it to reduce combat grind and increase moster threat.

 

[Elric]

In the 4E games I run I had given +1/2 level to damage to monsters and PCs. That was ok, but players had issues remembering ther +1/2 lvl and it favored multiple attacks and AOE attacks. My current method is to set monsters at 3/4 HP and have mosters do +1/2 lvl dam. The work is all on me now and the players dont have extra stuff to forget. This extra work for me as the DM is negligable. This has worked perfectly in practice and I highly rcomend it to reduce combat grind and increase moster threat.

The problem with 3/4 HP, +1/2 damage per level is that it isn't going to work well at low or high levels. At level 2, for example, monsters lose 1/4 of their HP for a +1 damage bonus. At level 30, monsters lose 1/4 of their HP but do well over half again as much damage (normal damage expression is around 24, so this is over +60% as much damage).

If you are giving monsters 3/4 of their normal hit points, it would make sense for monsters to do about 4/3 normal damage,

In general, +1/3 to damage over the DMG’s normal damage expression guidelines would be approximately Bonus Damage= 2+ Level/5. At high levels, +1/2 level in damage rapidly outstrips this formula (+8 damage at level 30 by the formula).

Brutes, who use the high damage table should get roughly Bonus Damage=3+Level/5 instead, since their base numbers are higher. This number should be lower for attacks that use the low damage table, about (9 + Level)/6 bonus damage.

 

[eriktheguy]

To expand on Elric's point, reducing monster HP does not make bonus damage feats seem less useful, while a static damage bonus would.
Furthermore, lowering enemy HP makes controllers more effective in the same what that this suggestion does, allowing casters to deal out large amounts of damage to enemies that are now more susceptible to your attack.
Reducing enemy HP and experience theoretically makes strikers a bit less valuable, since more enemies are bound to be on the battlefield (and IMO strikers are a bit ahead of the other classes).
Reduced HP and EXP per monster is my favorite system because it makes combat larger (more enemies to favor controllers) more dangerous (more enemies means allies take more damage and makes leaders more necessary) and more chaotic (defenders have a lot more defending to do).
The main reason that I do not like the static damage bonus is that the game's balance seems to be severely affected by it, while a modification to monster HP/EXP does not affect balance as much.
The second reason that I prefer monster HP/EXP modification over a static damage bonus is that the bookkeeping is entirely in the hands of the DM. The DM tends to be a more experienced player. Also if the DM ever needs to tweak or remove this house rule, the players will not know, and therefore will not be upset that you are 'taking away their damage bonus' because it didn't work out as you wanted.