Changed the first post (everthing that's blue is new).
What is the normal scaling of a monster's damage? 8+level avarage damage? Isn't that right? Well now the scaling of monster damage is 8+half-level. Isn't that funny, we removed half-level bonuses and as a result gave monsters a new one xD
Changed the first post (everthing that's blue is new).
What is the normal scaling of a monster's damage? 8+level avarage damage? Isn't that right? Well now the scaling of monster damage is 8+half-level. Isn't that funny, we removed half-level bonuses and as a result gave monsters a new one xD
Minions normally deal the average damage dealt for single target attacks (see errata for DMG monster template damage table). Normally, minions should be dealing around 4 damage at level 1, not 9 (which my minions were dealing). I've pulled back my punches for my players now -- dealing a scaling damage of 4 + level at heroic tier, with additional 2 damage at paragon and 4 damage at epic -- but that formula I posted is something completely off-topic, since it deals with beefing up minions and monster damage up to eleven, and has nothing to do with making a level-less D&D.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
I've created a group that is willing to test this out. This will be very interesting :D
I'm still not sure if messing with the HP scaling is a good idea. Can you please convince me that's either good or bad, so I can stop feeling like it's both :S
I've created a group that is willing to test this out. This will be very interesting :D
I'm still not sure if messing with the HP scaling is a good idea. Can you please convince me that's either good or bad, so I can stop feeling like it's both :S
HP normally scales with the expectation that the individual and the party overall can take more blows before going down, so HP scaling should coincide with damage scaling as well.
For comparison, a level 1 standard deals 1d8+4 (average 8.5 damage), while a level 30 standard deals 4d8+20 (average 38 damage), whereas a typical PC at level 1 would have 12 + CON HP (let's assume 13 CON, or 25 HP), while a level 30 PC would have 157 + CON HP (let's assume 15 CON, or 172 HP). That would place the level 1 PC taking an average of only 3 hits to bring down, as opposed to the level 30 PC taking an average of 5 hits to bring down, excluding the powers, feats, chance to get hit, etc. that makes the level 30 PC that much harder to take down.
If HP scaling on either side is adjusted, then damage scaling on either side has to be adjusted as well. This adjustment, however, has to be done carefully, otherwise either enemies become too deadly too quickly, or combat becomes more of a chore than a theatrical point of tension.
This is also why I'm more in favor of the freeze-level scenario, which is actually more of a pseudo-freeze scenario, since HP -- temporary or otherwise -- could easily scale up if necessary; it's just that it'll be a DM-granted boon (maybe a divine boon or some ego-boosting stuff like reputation or "battle experience") as opposed to a level-granted mechanic.
To elaborate: 1 At level 1 a party of four could have the default character creation stuff. 2 Later on they get items that grant them the benefit of a feat, as well as an item that grants them 5 tempHP at the start of combat. 3 Then they get blessings from their deities that grant them an encounter power, and their item grants 10 tempHP at the start of combat instead of 5. 4 Then later they become so famous they gain reputation benefits that grant them the benefits of another feat, and maybe even a stat boost. Their tempHP-granting item grants 15 tempHP instead of 10. 5 Then they get training from a legendary group of heroes that grant them a level 1 daily, and their tempHP-granting item grants 20 tempHP instead of 15.
And so on and so forth. In other words, the existing mechanics doesn't exactly have to go away -- except perhaps the half-level scaling -- they instead are reflavored and placed back in as alternate mechanics. The party is still effectively level 1, but because of the boons, etc. that they have, they have almost the same durability and capability as a higher-level character, albeit without the half-level scaling.
You could even grant a blade that enhances Sneak Attack, or a bow that improves Hunter's Quarry, or whatever equipment is deemed the "signature" of the PC in question. That way, you can scale up the class feature and damage and even make enemies hit harder and take more hits, as per normal All without raising the PC's level.
Monsters could stay at level 1, but their CON Score could be raised or lowered as necessary, raising or lowering their HP appropriately. As the PC's health/tempHP padding increases, so could the enemy damage increase.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
This is a very valid option; stop the HP/Damage train completely, but give it to them in some other way instead of leveling. So a 1(1) and a 1(30) have very noticable and explanable reason for why one can fight a god and the other one can't.
I will probably be using that, taking jumps in HP and damage. For example, I'll have them freeze their everything at level 4, and then they won't get a HP or healing boost from their class until at level 8 where they complete a major mission for an Archangel or something. Then they get 4 levels worth of hit points each, and their healing words gets beefed up etc. Now they are, for calculating damage, effects, THPs, bonuses and HP at level 8. I will continue to have these leaps in features where appropriate.
For example these THP-granters that grant THPs "2+level" will just jump whenever they get a "boon".
I like this idea!
The other way to do this would be to reduce all HPs granted from the class by 2, and then have damage be reduced accordingly, but that would just mess up the balance all over again.
if they only gain hp and damage buffs as some divine boon then how did the monsters gain so much.
I personaly dislike it, again in my experience players like the slow and steady hp gain, even if you granted these gains perhaps every game (devide levels up so that they gain part of a level every game) which is similar to what the system we play now does.
basicaly I am more in favor of more levels instead of less, levels allow a player to feal liek they acomplished something so perhaps devide elvels into parts maybe 2 parts or 3 depending on how often and how long you game and then designe key points in the game where you feal they have acomplished stuff like realy hard fights or soemthing and grant them a partial level
remember that whatever the players are gaining the monsters are gaining albe it by using stronger monsters more then by upping the rank of said monsters.
also remember that damage and hp gain are more or less written into power designe to tweeking them effects the powers the monsters and the feal of the character itself
of all the things a player gains hp and damage gains is the single things that make a character FEAL stronger. They give more of the illusion of gaining power then anything else since it determains how fast you can kill stuff and how many hits you can take. **************************************************************
so more to the point reasons to not mess with hp/damage
powers are designed around current damage and hp idea (like 2x weapon damage and such)
players feal like they are gaining power when they gain hp/damage increases
swapping with damage and hp greatly effects the feal of monsters
a lot more work altering the hp and damage of a monster then just it's attack and skills
let me toss anouther idea out
during character creation only grant +2 to trained skills and secretly write down how many skill points they missed out on.
allow them to otherwise make there character as normal
Right down secretly the effects of level 2 for the character. Tell the players to not leave there level section blank or X it out, when they ask why explain that your not using levels for this game.
During the game make ocational notes when they do stuff like defeating bosses or using a particular skill a lot.
At Key points or at the end of the game give each player bonuses based on what they did during the game. these bonuses are in fact parts of the skill points from training they never got, and parts of lv 2 benifits.
secretly keap track of there level so they become level 2 when you have given them all the benifits of level 2, then you start giving them level 3 benifits.
ocationaly don't give them a feat instead transfering that effect to skill gains the player has earned, potentialy even granting the effect of bonus feats if they realy earn them threw roleplaying and hard skill chalenges.
so in essence your using levels there gaining all but the 1/2 level effect of it (or all except the 1/2 skill benifit even) but to the players your just giving them bonuses based on the events of the game.
Wise players might adventualy do the math and figure it out but then if your assigning the effects of feats as bonuses then there math won't fully add up unless there realy knoledgable of feats and such and even then minor changes to gains could hide the effects further.
End effect is that you keap all the benifits of them leveling up but remove the idea of levels itself transfering the effects to a more explainable reason and making the players feal as if there actions have a greater effect on charcter evolution which in fact they would.
Personaly I would assign the benifits at the start of the next game so you can decide exactly what benifits the players had earned for there characters but maybe give small 1 HP or 1 skill point or something after key chalenges that make sence or at points where the player realy earned it or suprised you in a good way.
Drawback of this is that the dm has to keap activ log of all the things he has granted the players so to keap them at ruffly the same level and to know what monsters they can handle. benifit is that it encourages roleplaying, adds a feal that the character is growing in a realistic way, and removes the question of what level is he since players never actualy use levels they become a dm tool that is always kept secret. instead npc would b describes as he seams a little weaker then you guys or he seams extreamly skilled ect
@Stargazer: The point of this thread is to allow characters who are not the same level to party together, and still feel like the contribute, and avoid giving the DM the painful headache of trying to balance a party with one character 5 levels higher than the rest. Thus why we are trying to diminish the impact levelling up has on a character. It most certainly is a house-rule, but we wish to remember that the point is to allow a level 1 character and a level 6 character to party together. (Note: We don't want a level 1 and a level 30 to party together, although we haven't yet defined exactly how big of a gap we are aiming for. Personally, I've been going on the assumption we would want characters up to about 8 levels apart to party together.) I also believe the idea is for players and DM to agree to this at the beginning - you could certainly go with the hiding route, but I think that would be a matter for another thread. (Not saying it's a bad idea; many games use such a system. I simply think it is different enough that we don't nescessarily want to handle it in this thread.)
@scaling feats/ability scores: You have convinced me - the point is to allow different level characters to feel like they contribute, and avoiding scaling certainly does that. All feat scaling should disappear. All ability score scaling should disappear at levels ending in 4 or 8. However, I do think we should leave in ability score increases at the beginning of paragon and epic tier (allowing a level 21 character to have a 24 in a stat if he started with an 18, had a racial increase, and took an ED that increased it). This would give a noticeable difference between a level 1 and a level 30, while not being a huge difference (20 to 24, a +2 to difference to hit, and it allows for feat acquisitions that require 21 in stats even if you don't have an ED that offers a stat increase).
@Monster HP: PC Striker Damage will NOT change much even without scaling feats and ability scores. (Note, by striker, I mean anyone built for damage, even if he is not actually a striker - most of this damage comes from multi-attacking, off-turn attacks, and static mods that are not scaling) (My DPR king Avenger would probably still top 400 DPR with at-will attacks). Therefore monster hp should stay EXACTLY as it is currently (and if your group halves hp in regular play due to non-optimized characters, then you can half monster hp in this verstion too - but that would be chosen by the group, and not be something included in this ruleset.)
@PC Damage: Leave as written, except that ability scores (mostly, see above) don't scale, and feats don't scale (no one will ever take weapon focus anymore, but that doesn't bother me)
@PC HP: I still firmly believe that having no hp scaling will result in every single PC wanting the amulet that grants extra hp - which makes that amulet far too powerful. By allowing for extremely limited hp scaling (ie: do not ever gain hp for gaining levels, but allow all other forms of hp and thp generation to stay as currently written in the rules), we provide alternatives, so that people can choose other neck slot items without completely shafting themselves. Of course, if you simply ban that amulet, then this wouldn't be required, and I would accept no scaling whatsoever. However, assuming my extremly limited form of hp scaling, then
@Monster Damage: If you leave in my limited pc hp scaling then you leave monster damage AS WRITTEN. Yes this means a level '35' brute (like tiamat) could do 70 damage in one hit - which means the only people who will EVER fight such a monster are those who are absolutely sure that they are ready. Note that I only mention monster level in order to reference monsters; obviously with levels being gone for PCs, we COULD also do away with monster levels, but see below.
@Anything else monster: Take out the half level bonus if applicable.
Why do I prefer this particular version? It means the DM only changes ONE thing - removing the half-level bonuses, which will be exactly the same change (and a very easy one) for all monsters. (Except for choosing what s/he will pit against the PCs - this will also need to be changed, but is subjective, and somewhat needs to be done with RAW anyway). The DM doesn't need to modify stats, which means no extra work for the DM; the DM only needs to adjust the xp value of monsters (kobolds will be dangerous opponents up until level 15 or so; giants will be dangerous even up to level 30). The DM can use orcs, or giants, or anything, for as long as s/he wishes without a problem; and if doesn't want a particular monster to be so dangerous, he can simply level it down, using the standard rules for de-leveling a monster, in order to change it's stats. He doesn't need to worry about a completely new ruleset. Instead, all the mechanical changes are on the PC side of the page; and while the DM has to adjust his thoughts about what is dangerous, so do the players - a level 1 (19) group will have to think long and hard about fighting a level 19 monster, as their survivability will be FAR lower than in the RAW version; but this will encourage further roleplaying, planning, and thinking ahead, which are all things that I personally believe are good.
Major drawback: With this version, PC's will generally fight lower level monsters. Young dragons will be true opponents even into paragon; adult dragons will threaten epic characters. Ancient dragons will probably swallow epic characters alive without blinking an eye. This could lead to boredom from fighting the same monsters over and over and to sadness at not seeing all the super-keen-cool monsters that are in all the different monster manuals. Personally, I don't think this is a problem, as this is largely how I ran previous editions of D&D, but it is certainly something to be aware of.
@PC HP/Monster Damage: If we COMPLETELY take out scaling hp, then we have to modify the monster damage. Totally doable, probably will replicate the feel I want, and probably won't make high level monsters (like level 1 (30)) completely wipe out parties as regularly. Will take a lot more testing though to figure out exactly where the right amount is (although I agree that cutting level '30' monsters down to level '8' or so is probably right, we'd still need to test it.)
if they only gain hp and damage buffs as some divine boon then how did the monsters gain so much.
Are you asking my why a Frost Giant takes more hits to take down than a non-magically buffed human? I think it is more thematically correct that some generic monsters (kobolds, non-magical medium sized bugs) can be out-powered, and some monsters are way stronger than you up until a certain level. A level 1 group shouldn't be able to kill a Purple Worm just as a level 15 group shouldn't have to raise a finger til kill a non-magical pack of wolves.
I personaly dislike it, again in my experience players like the slow and steady hp gain, even if you granted these gains perhaps every game (devide levels up so that they gain part of a level every game) which is similar to what the system we play now does.
This is interesting since I've never heard a player say "wow, I gained 5 HP" after I gave them their character sheet for the next level. At best I've hear the con-based warlocks and sentinels brag to the tank how equal their HP pools are. Rewards should be given as deserved, not "after each session". If what they did in the session was just RP they should not get a combat-related reward, such as +1 hp (although skill points are no-problem, but require heavy DC-management... which is really boring).
basicaly I am more in favor of more levels instead of less, levels allow a player to feal liek they acomplished something so perhaps devide elvels into parts maybe 2 parts or 3 depending on how often and how long you game and then designe key points in the game where you feal they have acomplished stuff like realy hard fights or soemthing and grant them a partial level
We never said we were taking out levels, just half-level bonuses and math-fixes. I even made it green so it would be easier to spot. They do accomplish something. Feats, items, divine boons, saving the planet. All of these things are pretty hefty rewards when you think about it. It was like the one time when vampires stole our cleric, and when we where saving her the rest of the vampire clan attacked the village. As soon as we could we stormed to the village. Holding their Vampire Lord's head in the air we said "this is what we do to your kind! We killed your master, will you dare challenge us". The clan of vampires ran with their tails between their legs to the nearest forest. You should've seen my group's faces, they basically had "feeling of accomplishment" written in their eyes.
also remember that damage and hp gain are more or less written into power designe to tweeking them effects the powers the monsters and the feal of the character itself
Then again, if there's anything that's okay, balance wise, it is upping damage numbers. Just look and Mordekeinen's weapon, most of them give a conditional +2 to damage rolls, but very few of them give any to-hit buffs. This is because damage is far easier to balance between PCs and Monsters than anything else. Let them do too much damage, if the monster is supposed to be very scary or important story-wise, we DMs have a knack of increasing their HP accordingly, even after the dragon has just hit 0 HP we sometimes think "nah, we'll give him 80 extra HP, just for the feel. They are really having fun right now and I don't want to end it right away". Increasing AC between hits or DCs betwen skill checks is far more noticable than increasing/decreasnig a monster's HP by 10% on the fly.
of all the things a player gains hp and damage gains is the single things that make a character FEAL stronger. They give more of the illusion of gaining power then anything else since it determains how fast you can kill stuff and how many hits you can take.
This is true, HP and damage scaling are the two things a PC can be measured by. This is why this should be kept in. Remember, most of our heroes start out as Bruce Wayne, and train their way to become Batman. However, when fate desires, the gods have no problem giving them the powers of Superman to fight the world's evil forces. They can train to their peak by themselves (become a PARAGON of an adventurer), but after that they need the aid of the supernatural. No man can fight vecna with only his mortal strength. This is why I agree on the freeze level advancement, it really makes getting to the next tier a big milestone. Even HP-scaling is like if after every 6 session an angel came down and said "there you go, +6 HP". I want these supernatural bonuses to come when appriopriate, not "every 6 sessions, no matter what's going on in the story" The session where we save *insert something important here* and I tell them "You are reaching the peak of your physical prowess, the prime of your mortal selves. But there is *something threatening something important*. If you are to save *that thing* you will need a new method of advancement. Your durability alone will no be enough to face the *threatening stuff*
Most adventurers are used to this. Last session my group (level 8) just found a way of defeating a level 22 Elder Red Dragon that I didn't consider was possible! I can surely say that my group is used to be in way over their head and still come out on top xD
so more to the point reasons to not mess with hp/damage
powers are designed around current damage and hp idea (like 2x weapon damage and such)
players feal like they are gaining power when they gain hp/damage increases
swapping with damage and hp greatly effects the feal of monsters
a lot more work altering the hp and damage of a monster then just it's attack and skills
Can be ignored, a person doing 2d6 extra damage on a crit once per encounter is no biggie. Most crits do something far more epic that that.
This is true.
Monsters will be left untouched.
This is true, but freeze-leveling is based on freezing the level. Just keep monsters between n-2 and n+2 and you're good
Every DM can descide himself where the mortal advancement stops and the "level freeze" begins, this means also choosing not to go by any of our suggestions.
during character creation only grant +2 to trained skills and secretly write down how many skill points they missed out on.
allow them to otherwise make there character as normal
Right down secretly the effects of level 2 for the character. Tell the players to not leave there level section blank or X it out, when they ask why explain that your not using levels for this game.
During the game make ocational notes when they do stuff like defeating bosses or using a particular skill a lot.
At Key points or at the end of the game give each player bonuses based on what they did during the game. these bonuses are in fact parts of the skill points from training they never got, and parts of lv 2 benifits.
secretly keap track of there level so they become level 2 when you have given them all the benifits of level 2, then you start giving them level 3 benifits.
ocationaly don't give them a feat instead transfering that effect to skill gains the player has earned, potentialy even granting the effect of bonus feats if they realy earn them threw roleplaying and hard skill chalenges.
so in essence your using levels there gaining all but the 1/2 level effect of it (or all except the 1/2 skill benifit even) but to the players your just giving them bonuses based on the events of the game.
Wise players might adventualy do the math and figure it out but then if your assigning the effects of feats as bonuses then there math won't fully add up unless there realy knoledgable of feats and such and even then minor changes to gains could hide the effects further.
End effect is that you keap all the benifits of them leveling up but remove the idea of levels itself transfering the effects to a more explainable reason and making the players feal as if there actions have a greater effect on charcter evolution which in fact they would.
Personaly I would assign the benifits at the start of the next game so you can decide exactly what benifits the players had earned for there characters but maybe give small 1 HP or 1 skill point or something after key chalenges that make sence or at points where the player realy earned it or suprised you in a good way.
Drawback of this is that the dm has to keap activ log of all the things he has granted the players so to keap them at ruffly the same level and to know what monsters they can handle. benifit is that it encourages roleplaying, adds a feal that the character is growing in a realistic way, and removes the question of what level is he since players never actualy use levels they become a dm tool that is always kept secret. instead npc would b describes as he seams a little weaker then you guys or he seams extreamly skilled ect
I have done this with one charater (see my lifestealer thread) and a friend of mine is running a game where all the adventurers suffer from amnesia and are slowely remembering their class, powers and features. It's fun, but takes a lot of effort to maintain. It also means that at some point sombody is going to say "Why did he gain a feat and not me!?". Also, DnD leveling and feat selection takes a lot of planning, more than most games. We have to think about prerequisites and paragon paths etc. Giving random feats based on what the group is doing ATM is a dangerous idea.
I like this idea, and I wish I was the one that had come up with the "amnesia" idea. But giving my RP/combat-balanced group a new combat-based toy to play with every sessions gives me the feeling that they'll turn into a combat/combat group instead, since they'll want every chance they get to try out a new encounter/daily power. I like leveling up every 6-8 sessions, means they can get new stuff AND be active in the story. I can balance class-rewards with item, story, gadghets and boons. A bag of requirements and a new encounter power are two very very different rewards. Giving them new stuff and to be able to control where they get the REALLY big buffs is even better. Sometimes I feel like there's something off that a group is getting the same mechanical reward after saving the world and after killing enough orcs and return a lost tiara to a princess. I like it that when something big happens I can give them a big reward (+4 levels worth of HP) without thinking "ach, I gave them too much, now they are overpowered and unbalanced" even though they deserved such a big reward, and this is why I'll be using jump-leveling when it comes to HP. Writing this I'm even thinking "why not, when they get their supernatural boons, give them all their deserved half-level bonuses?", if anything it makes using the online character builder possible.
@scaling feats/ability scores: You have convinced me - the point is to allow different level characters to feel like they contribute, and avoiding scaling certainly does that. All feat scaling should disappear. All ability score scaling should disappear at levels ending in 4 or 8. However, I do think we should leave in ability score increases at the beginning of paragon and epic tier (allowing a level 21 character to have a 24 in a stat if he started with an 18, had a racial increase, and took an ED that increased it). This would give a noticeable difference between a level 1 and a level 30, while not being a huge difference (20 to 24, a +2 to difference to hit, and it allows for feat acquisitions that require 21 in stats even if you don't have an ED that offers a stat increase).
I agree. The tiers are something special to me, I always plan something really epic for the sessions before getting to a new tier. I personally have no problem giving a level 8 character in a level 10 party 3 levels worth of HP and an ability score boost, I'd just make sure he wont get HP for the next three levels insead. I'd just make it a supernatural boons of sorts. He'll still be lacking in feats and powers, but his to-hit and HP would allow him to be on par with his friends. Being a paragon of an archer is more than just gaining a set of new features, he earned that title and is special for that, even without his Paragon Path.
@PC HP: I still firmly believe that having no hp scaling will result in every single PC wanting the amulet that grants extra hp - which makes that amulet far too powerful. By allowing for extremely limited hp scaling (ie: do not ever gain hp for gaining levels, but allow all other forms of hp and thp generation to stay as currently written in the rules), we provide alternatives, so that people can choose other neck slot items without completely shafting themselves. Of course, if you simply ban that amulet, then this wouldn't be required, and I would accept no scaling whatsoever. However, assuming my extremly limited form of hp scaling, then
We have realized that removing HP scaling is nigh-impossible, both for flavour and balance of the entire game. This is why encourage leveling like normally up to a certain points, then freeze the level, and then give HP in forms of rewards. Maybe they all feel the spirit of the dragon pass through them as he falls, imbuing their blood with his durability etc.
@Monster Damage: If you leave in my limited pc hp scaling then you leave monster damage AS WRITTEN. Yes this means a level '35' brute (like tiamat) could do 70 damage in one hit - which means the only people who will EVER fight such a monster are those who are absolutely sure that they are ready. Note that I only mention monster level in order to reference monsters; obviously with levels being gone for PCs, we COULD also do away with monster levels, but see below.
Monster damage scales with PC HP. If your PCs have 10 levels worth of HP, let the monster do damage as level 10 monster. Monster damage will have to scale, so kobolds won't be doing as much damage as tiamat due to a mechanical housrule like levelessness. Hitting a monster can be easy, but hitting it so it hurts is a different thing. A peasant trying to fight tiamat is till lacking ability scores, enhancement bonuses and feats, so he probably wont hit. But it's not because of some magical half-level bonuses. A peasant with a magical sword might have a chance of hitting him, but he'll do so little damage that tiamat wont feel a tickle.
Why do I prefer this particular version? It means the DM only changes ONE thing - removing the half-level bonuses, which will be exactly the same change (and a very easy one) for all monsters. (Except for choosing what s/he will pit against the PCs - this will also need to be changed, but is subjective, and somewhat needs to be done with RAW anyway). The DM doesn't need to modify stats, which means no extra work for the DM; the DM only needs to adjust the xp value of monsters (kobolds will be dangerous opponents up until level 15 or so; giants will be dangerous even up to level 30). The DM can use orcs, or giants, or anything, for as long as s/he wishes without a problem; and if doesn't want a particular monster to be so dangerous, he can simply level it down, using the standard rules for de-leveling a monster, in order to change it's stats. He doesn't need to worry about a completely new ruleset. Instead, all the mechanical changes are on the PC side of the page; and while the DM has to adjust his thoughts about what is dangerous, so do the players - a level 1 (19) group will have to think long and hard about fighting a level 19 monster, as their survivability will be FAR lower than in the RAW version; but this will encourage further roleplaying, planning, and thinking ahead, which are all things that I personally believe are good.
As long as the DM realizes that a level 4(15) group shouldn't have any problem with some kobolds, I agree. However, monsters will need enhancement bonuses according to the inherent bonus system to keep up with the PCs gaining magic weapons..
Major drawback: With this version, PC's will generally fight lower level monsters. Young dragons will be true opponents even into paragon; adult dragons will threaten epic characters. Ancient dragons will probably swallow epic characters alive without blinking an eye. This could lead to boredom from fighting the same monsters over and over and to sadness at not seeing all the super-keen-cool monsters that are in all the different monster manuals. Personally, I don't think this is a problem, as this is largely how I ran previous editions of D&D, but it is certainly something to be aware of.
@PC HP/Monster Damage: If we COMPLETELY take out scaling hp, then we have to modify the monster damage. Totally doable, probably will replicate the feel I want, and probably won't make high level monsters (like level 1 (30)) completely wipe out parties as regularly. Will take a lot more testing though to figure out exactly where the right amount is (although I agree that cutting level '30' monsters down to level '8' or so is probably right, we'd still need to test it.)
Actually, if DMs will use official monsters they obviously wont use a level 1 monster against a level 1(30) group. Levels are still in the game, so when leveling up/down an official monster he should only do so by 4 levels, and that monster only gains increases in damage/HP and a +1/-1 inherent bonus to defenses. This means that the PCs will always be fighting monsters with "correct" healthpools, making level 1 monsters just as threatening as minions. I don't recommend removing HP scaling.
All without raising the PC's level.
