Non-scaling attack bonuses... does it work?

[Wik]

I have an idea for some house rule variants for 4e, and I was wondering if others have already done this before I try to tackle the math. Here's my basic idea:

* Get rid of the "half level bonus on skill checks, attack rolls, and defences" rule.
* Keep the "improve your ability scores every 4th level" rule
* Keep normal monster and PC hit point and damage values
* Lose all feats that grant an attack or defence bonus, but keep powers that do likewise.
* No magical item bonuses to attack or defences... but possibly keep the damage bonus (or maybe not).
* Rewrite monster defence values to fit this scale (see below).

Okay, so a few touches I'd add to this, as well. First, there would be six "tiers": Low Heroic, High Heroic, Low Paragon, High Paragon, Low Epic, and High Epic, with monster defence values based on which "tier" they were at (so I could ad-lib a monster's defences based on his role and level rather quickly).

My question is, roughly what should those values be? How would we look at scaling attack bonuses?

The reason I like this idea is because I think the "half level" rule is silly, since it applies to both monsters and PCs... why not just get rid of it? With it being present, it means there is a relatively narrow range of monsters the PCs are capable of fighting (let's say level +/- 5?) at any one time. 10th level PCs against a bunch of goblins just mean the fight is going to take forever with no threat to the PCs, while 1st level PCs against a 10th level monster is impossible (the monster will always hit, and the PCs will always miss).

I guess I'd just like to see an even flatter scale to PC progression in relation to monster strength, and was wondering how to figure out monster defence values.

So, to repeat my question: What should the defence values of monsters be in such a setting? Should they remain at the same number, or should they slightly scale up (as higher level PCs will accrue higher attack bonuses just from increasing ability scores and benefits from companions)?

 

[Wik]

To give an example of what I envision:

Adam the fighter is a first level human on his first adventure. He has an 18 strength, a 15 Con, and an eleven in all other abilities (for the sake of the example!). At first level, Adam uses his longsword, and when using his at-will, he has an attack bonus of +8 (+4 from his strength, +3 from the longsword, and +1 from his fighter one-handed weapon talent). That same at-will deals 1d8+5 damage (we'll say Adam has Weapon Focus as a feat). Adam has 30 hit points, and with his scale mail and shield, an AC of 19 (for the purposes of this example, we'll ignore his other defences).

Adam is adventuring with Brody the Fighter for some reason. Brody is a 10th level human fighter, who has taken all the same feats as Adam, and then more! (The Player of Brody is kind of a jerk). In fact, Brody had the same ability scores as Adam at first level, though now at 10th level, Brody has a Strength of 20 and a Constitution of 17. Brody has upgraded by now to a Bastard sword, and he's got an attack bonus of +9 (+5 from his strength, +3 from the sword, and +1 from his class talent), and deals 1d10+8 damage with his at-will (he picked up a +2 longsword... with the +2 only counting towards his damage output)... of course, he's also got a lot more encounter powers, dailies, and utilities! Most importanly, Brody has 86 hit points - he'll last longer in a fight, that's for sure! His AC is still going to be 19, though - no improvement there.

Now, if Brody and Adam adventure together, against (let's say) 6th level Lizardfolk Blackscale Bruisers. Each bruiser deals 1d10+6 damage on a hit, and has 86 HP (as written).

Both Adam and Brody have about the same chance to hit, with Brody hitting slightly more often. However, Adam can only take maybe three hits before dying, whereas Brody will last much longer (eight or nine hits). Adam will be forced to rely upon his at-wills, while Brody can use his encounters to take of the monster (also, he generally knows the odds of his daily hitting).

 

[Sander]

This will work, however there are still some math problems to be solved. When you let the attack roll scale with ability scores, the monsters defences need to scale up about the same. You also need to reduce the monster defences by aprox. their level. When you combine this math it gets quite complicated.

Recalcultated monster defense = normal defense -(monster lvl-1)+(monster level/7)

If you have to do this for 4 defenses per monster it gets quite annoying.
Ac wil have more problems because Light armor scales with ability scores, Heavy armor does not.


I understand why you are trying to do this, but this wil take alot of your time. If i might suggest an easier way to get the same result:

Just solve this by giving Adam a bonus to attack/defense equal to their level difference.(brody lvl-adam lvl) If you want to give brody the edge, lower the bonus by 1 or 2.
This is a method also described in DMG2 wich allows lower lvl characters to adventure with higher level ones.

If you want to use monsters with levels a lot higher or lower, just use the normal attack and defence, only recalculate when you use a monster that is more then 2 levels above or below the party. For example:

If your party is level 5, you use the normal monster defense and attack for monsters level 3 to 7. Every thing above gets a penalty and everything below gets a bonus.

The math:
monster is more then 2 levels above party, add a penalty to attack/defense equal to (monster level-(party level+2))

monster is more then 2 levels below party, add a bonus to attack/defense equal to (party level-(monster level+2))

You can change the offset bonus to you own taste. just replace 2 in the formula with the level difference you think is appropriate.

This method cuts the recalculating of defense/attack only to situations where you actually need it. I'm a lazy person, so this would be the way i'd handle it.