*D&D 4ed*

[RandomCasualty2]

But all those new powers by definition have to be on the same scale as the previous powers. That means that almost everything is an attack with a shift or 1 round status effect or whatever. You can't have Charm Monster, Animate Dead, Silent Image, grappling, great cleave, or anything at all like those powers in 4e.

Well, I don't really see why you couldn't have some of those things as powers. I mean charm obviously couldn't exist in the 3.5 version, but we can pretty much agree it was overpowered there anyway, where you get basically a permanent slave monster. It would be possible to allow people to instantly charm minions, or possibly charm a larger monster for a shorter period of time, like a "Save ends" effect. Also there could possibly be a longer term charm ritual, where you'd require a piece of the creature to be charmed to cast it, or possibly just handle it with charm potions that you've got to trick the subject to drink (or force down their throat).

Animate dead could very well be a ritual that creates minions, I don't see a problem with a PC conjuring a bunch of skeleton or zombie minions.

Silent image really has no trouble being ported over. You'd need some rules to disbelieve an illusion. Either grant a saving throw, or perhaps something like int versus will. But aside from that figments really don't do much besides create terrain that you can pass through, or make fake monsters. They don't do damage and they don't inflict status conditions. So I don't see any reason why silent image couldn't be a utility spell for a wizard.

Grappling is just a more advanced version of 4E grab. In addition to immobilizing them, you also prevent them from attack with anything but a light blade or an unarmed attack. The grabbed guy is prevented from using any power that has the implement keyword as well.

Great cleave is really doable, the ranger has something very similar where he keeps taking attacks on stuff as long as he hits. So an ability that let you keep attacking everytime you dropped a monster would be possible. It'd effectively be like a close burst 1, but actually weaker, because you can only keep attacking if you kill something. You could probably even make great cleave an at will power. It seriously wouldn't be that much better than 4E cleave (which basically guarantees you kill a minion on 1 hit). Great cleave would basically give you the possibility of killing more than 2 minions, but you'd have to roll successful hits on each thing you want to kill. But it really doesn't feel like it'd be inherently better than standard 4E cleave.

Really, most of the 3.5 shit can be translated to 4E, except for stuff like enervation that has old mechanics, and shit that you probably don't want to convert over anyway, like Gate.

Yup. Fortunately for us, Frank and K have done most of the work for us, and we have a viable Monk.

Yeah, unfortunately, while it is on par with the spellcasters, it still begs the question of how you can get monsters to survive against those classes.

I generally like to have recurring villains in my campaigns and the 3.5 glass cannon combat system is a real turn off. Because sometimes it's nice if the villain has a chance to get away.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

It would be possible to allow people to instantly charm minions
...
Animate dead could very well be a ritual that creates minions, I don't see a problem with a PC conjuring a bunch of skeleton or zombie minions.

I don't really respect the idea of minions as defined in 4e. I mean, a level 1 kobold skirmisher has 27 hp, and any minion has 1 hp. They could be useful in some situations I guess, but if your troops have 1 hp while you are fighting enemies with hp in the hundreds...

...or possibly charm a larger monster for a shorter period of time, like a "Save ends" effect.

That is super lame. I don't want to charm a monster for 1 round. That reduces charming to being only marginally better than stunning. Charms in 3.x are useful not only in combat, but also in information gathering, intrigue, political games, etc. I like having persistently charmed creatures (even if its balanced). They add depth and fun to any game.

I really don't see 4e adding any charm effects besides something like a "save ends" effect. It wouldn't fit on their online dungeon for one.

Silent Image might be the antithesis of 4e. 4e's mass of X[W]+shift effects are about as far from Silent Image as you can get. I don't see how they could add something like that to the game.

Given their comments about the bugbear strangler, I don't think they will add in depth grappling rules. That is one of the selling points of the game. The dumbasses at Enworld are happy that grappling is gone.

Barring minions, I don't see martial characters ever great cleaving through a horde of enemies. Personally, I would feel like a bitch if my 25th level Fighter spent his turn knocking over things with 1 hp.

I suppose its possible to add some of stuff from 3.x to 4e. But seeing as how the first 3 4e rulebooks eschew it so much...I don't see it happening. Also, much of this stuff wouldn't fit on their online dungeon.

I generally like to have recurring villains in my campaigns and the 3.5 glass cannon combat system is a real turn off. Because sometimes it's nice if the villain has a chance to get away.

Heh. Some groups have the exact opposite problem. Especially with casters. Contingency teleports, Clones, Project Image, Astral Projection, Resurrections, etc.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

First of all: Battlefield control is about denying actions (this directly translates into monster-killing) AND protecting allies.

For me, the standard low-level battlefield control spell is a Silent Image of a wall with arrow slits just before the monsters get initiative. This denies monsters actions (they have to deal with the wall or disbelieve it or whatever, DM depending) and protects allies (monsters suck at shooting crossbows through walls). The protects allies and denies monster actions.

Later, around level 5 or so, my standard go-to spell becomes a Sculpted Glitterdust. This has the effect of making monsters blind (AKA fucked, -2 AC, no Dex to be Sneak Attacked, moves at half speed, may not take AoOs, and cannot hit non-adjacent creatures except by locating them with a Listen check in combat). The monster(s) gets denied actions, the team gets to have total cover, and the monster gets arrowed to death with it's new ability to be sneak attacked, walk really slow, and not take AoOs on the people that walk away from it.

Later, you can get into the true Save of Die spells such as Hold Monster. This protects allies by denying monsters actions pretty straightforwardly.

Walls can be used at any time effectively if for no reason other than to block a monster's charge, prevent a monster from grappling the squishy characters, or just give the rogue cover enough to pop out and make a sneak attack.

Please people, denying actions is the same thing as protecting allies. It is much more effective than other ways of protecting allies (what are you going to do? Boost their saves? Make them invisible? Fuck it, just blind the monsters so that they can't hit/walk/cast targeted spells).

[Maxus]

First of all: Battlefield control is about denying actions (this directly translates into monster-killing) AND protecting allies.

For me, the standard low-level battlefield control spell is a Silent Image of a wall with arrow slits just before the monsters get initiative. This denies monsters actions (they have to deal with the wall or disbelieve it or whatever, DM depending) and protects allies (monsters suck at shooting crossbows through walls). The protects allies and denies monster actions.

Later, around level 5 or so, my standard go-to spell becomes a Sculpted Glitterdust. This has the effect of making monsters blind (AKA fucked, -2 AC, no Dex to be Sneak Attacked, moves at half speed, may not take AoOs, and cannot hit non-adjacent creatures except by locating them with a Listen check in combat). The monster(s) gets denied actions, the team gets to have total cover, and the monster gets arrowed to death with it's new ability to be sneak attacked, walk really slow, and not take AoOs on the people that walk away from it.

Later, you can get into the true Save of Die spells such as Hold Monster. This protects allies by denying monsters actions pretty straightforwardly.

Walls can be used at any time effectively if for no reason other than to block a monster's charge, prevent a monster from grappling the squishy characters, or just give the rogue cover enough to pop out and make a sneak attack.

Please people, denying actions is the same thing as protecting allies. It is much more effective than other ways of protecting allies (what are you going to do? Boost their saves? Make them invisible? Fuck it, just blind the monsters so that they can't hit/walk/cast targeted spells).

I think that hits on a point. In DnD, the best defense is a good offense. You're much better off disabling your enemies than you are boosting your allies.

Now, if the Cleric or the Paladin had spells/abilities like make the target take half-damage for a set period of time, or spells that temporarily granted an awesome save bonus, or even a free pass on their next save, or end an effect, or in some way make it worth taking the action to proactively defend the party...

Then you might be able to call yourself a defender with a straight face. And it might be awesome to do so.

[Voss]

Well, I don't really see why you couldn't have some of those things as powers. I mean charm obviously couldn't exist in the 3.5 version, but we can pretty much agree it was overpowered there anyway, where you get basically a permanent slave monster. It would be possible to allow people to instantly charm minions, or possibly charm a larger monster for a shorter period of time, like a "Save ends" effect. Also there could possibly be a longer term charm ritual, where you'd require a piece of the creature to be charmed to cast it, or possibly just handle it with charm potions that you've got to trick the subject to drink (or force down their throat).

'Save ends' as a mechanic, makes me angry. First, its even more a pain in the ass to track than a simple duration. Mostly because you actually have to keep track of the source, and even the specific power. Some status conditions last until the start/end of something's turn. Some get save ends. And yet, for some reason, being consistent about this [all blind effects last until the end of target's next turn, all sleep effects are save ends] didn't occur to them. Plus, sometimes you actually have to keep track of the source. If the wizard uses his orb ability or someone has spell focus or is otherwise inflicting a penalty on the save, you have to know that.

End of turn and 'sustain minor' is a much cleaner mechanic. But they only used that occassionally. Hell, if they really wanted simple they could have made it 'end of encounter' and the target can try to save- if they succeed, they lose a move?/standard? action, if they fail, the condition continues.

[RandomCasualty2]

I don't really respect the idea of minions as defined in 4e. I mean, a level 1 kobold skirmisher has 27 hp, and any minion has 1 hp. They could be useful in some situations I guess, but if your troops have 1 hp while you are fighting enemies with hp in the hundreds...

I rather like the minion concept. It's nice for stuff that's just not important enough to bother tracking HP for.

That is super lame. I don't want to charm a monster for 1 round. That reduces charming to being only marginally better than stunning. Charms in 3.x are useful not only in combat, but also in information gathering, intrigue, political games, etc. I like having persistently charmed creatures (even if its balanced). They add depth and fun to any game.

Well, it's why i suggested having the long term charm be more of a ritual. I guess you could also add longer term charm as a non-combat utility spell for political things (and just not allow it to be used on shit that's hostile to you). Having a charm that's permanent to be used in combat just isn't especially balanced, in either edition really. It's better than a save or die, because you actually get an ally on your side. So it's just crazy powerful.

So pretty much any long-term story based charm, like where the wizard charms the queen so he can manipulate her, should probably be a ritual though.

I really don't see 4e adding any charm effects besides something like a "save ends" effect. It wouldn't fit on their online dungeon for one.

Yeah. Though you can still houserule such things.

Silent Image might be the antithesis of 4e. 4e's mass of X[W]+shift effects are about as far from Silent Image as you can get. I don't see how they could add something like that to the game.

Why? I'm really not sure why silent image is so bad. At most you summon a wall with arrow slits like SunTzu said, except the wall doesn't provide real cover (since it's not solid) and just provides the effects of partial concealment (since they can see part of you), so it's a -2 to their attack rolls. Whoop-dee-do.

Given their comments about the bugbear strangler, I don't think they will add in depth grappling rules. That is one of the selling points of the game. The dumbasses at Enworld are happy that grappling is gone.

Yeah, there won't be any basic grappling rules that everyone can use. Though grappling-like powers are certainly possible. With exception based design, pretty much anything is possible.

Barring minions, I don't see martial characters ever great cleaving through a horde of enemies. Personally, I would feel like a bitch if my 25th level Fighter spent his turn knocking over things with 1 hp.

Yeah, pretty much. But that's what minions are for. They're supposed to be the shit that dies in mass numbers.

Heh. Some groups have the exact opposite problem. Especially with casters. Contingency teleports, Clones, Project Image, Astral Projection, Resurrections, etc.

Yeah, well sometimes I want a villain that's something beyond a caster.

Later, around level 5 or so, my standard go-to spell becomes a Sculpted Glitterdust. This has the effect of making monsters blind (AKA fucked, -2 AC, no Dex to be Sneak Attacked, moves at half speed, may not take AoOs, and cannot hit non-adjacent creatures except by locating them with a Listen check in combat). The monster(s) gets denied actions, the team gets to have total cover, and the monster gets arrowed to death with it's new ability to be sneak attacked, walk really slow, and not take AoOs on the people that walk away from it.

Later, you can get into the true Save of Die spells such as Hold Monster. This protects allies by denying monsters actions pretty straightforwardly.

Hold monster and glitterdust aren't battlefield control, they're save-or-dies.

Battlefield control is stuff like web, solid fog, wall of stone, etc.

'Save ends' as a mechanic, makes me angry. First, its even more a pain in the ass to track than a simple duration. Mostly because you actually have to keep track of the source, and even the specific power. Some status conditions last until the start/end of something's turn. Some get save ends. And yet, for some reason, being consistent about this [all blind effects last until the end of target's next turn, all sleep effects are save ends] didn't occur to them. Plus, sometimes you actually have to keep track of the source. If the wizard uses his orb ability or someone has spell focus or is otherwise inflicting a penalty on the save, you have to know that.

Well I don't mind the save ends mechanic, because you don't have to keep track of the source. I hate the powers that end on a specific creatures next turn (sometimes the start of the turn and sometimes the end of the turn too). Those are a pain in the ass.

The only thing that's a pain with save ends is how they've got saves with penalties, which sort of defeats the whole purpose of the save mechanic, which is supposed to be simple and require less bookkeeping. There should only be a few save DCs, like 5, 10 and 15. So you can have variable durations. A short duration spell would have a 5, a medium a 10 and a long duration would have a 15.

It'd be nice if everything was a save ends. The shit that was supposed to be just 1 round should have the DC 5 save.

I would expect this standardization out of the system if they keep it in the next edition. It's just that right now it's a new system so it doesn't have all the polish and refinement.

End of turn and 'sustain minor' is a much cleaner mechanic. But they only used that occassionally. Hell, if they really wanted simple they could have made it 'end of encounter' and the target can try to save- if they succeed, they lose a move?/standard? action, if they fail, the condition continues.

I wouldn't mind that for some conditions. Like if you get lit on fire, it could be something like "Standard action ends" where you just put yourself out.

Though for the most part, the idea is that a save just represents a short duration spells, something that's going to last 1-3 rounds or so. So in 3.5, the save replaces shit like stinking cloud that nauseates someone for 1d4 rounds.

[Voss]

Actually, the save replaces durations. And for some things, you do have to track the source- if you can impose a save penalty, you have to know that *that* daze condition comes from the wizard, rather than the fighter. You also have to track the source so you know that *that* blind condition has a save, while *that* blind condition ends automatically at the end of the creatures turn. Thats both stupid and insane.

Plus, as a player... I *hate* the idea that my abilities are completely dependent on luck... and that the odds start off against me (55/45). If I do something successfully, I want it to be meaningful... not immediately disappear more than half the time.

I fully expect the next system to dump it (assuming, of course, that this doesn't tank, and even if it doesn't, the DDI crap doesn't collapse the division by sucking up all the funds). Its clunky, uninspired and unfun. It should have never made it through the testing process. If they wanted to eliminate durations (because they seem to think that their players are idiots, math being hard, or something) they should have just done that. Not added a crapshoot mechanic to durations.

[RandomCasualty2]

Actually, the save replaces durations. And for some things, you do have to track the source- if you can impose a save penalty, you have to know that *that* daze condition comes from the wizard, rather than the fighter. You also have to track the source so you know that *that* blind condition has a save, while *that* blind condition ends automatically at the end of the creatures turn. Thats both stupid and insane.

Yeah, I think they expect you to just remember the shit that ends on poeple's turns. while the save stuff you actually write down on our save chart.

I don't really like that they've got so many ways of ending a duration. It'd be fine if everything was a save of varying DCs. like I said 5,10,15 would be okay. and you'd just right Blind (short) or something next to it, and that'd mean you're blinded on the short term.

I don't like how some stuff ends on other people's turns either. That's just a crap mechanic because it's too much to remember. All effects should end at the end of the creature's turn during the save stage.

Plus, as a player... I *hate* the idea that my abilities are completely dependent on luck... and that the odds start off against me (55/45). If I do something successfully, I want it to be meaningful... not immediately disappear more than half the time.

Well, an effect that ends on a save is going to last at least 1 round, if not longer.

If they wanted to eliminate durations (because they seem to think that their players are idiots, math being hard, or something) they should have just done that. Not added a crapshoot mechanic to durations.

Well you don't really want to eliminate durations, you just want to make them easier to track. So you're not ever asking yourself, "Is the elf's haste still active?"

Because really, I hated that, most of the time I just made something up in 3.5 since I couldn't be bothered to track that shit.

[Iaimeki]

I think that hits on a point. In DnD, the best defense is a good offense. You're much better off disabling your enemies than you are boosting your allies.

Now, if the Cleric or the Paladin had spells/abilities like make the target take half-damage for a set period of time, or spells that temporarily granted an awesome save bonus, or even a free pass on their next save, or end an effect, or in some way make it worth taking the action to proactively defend the party...

Then you might be able to call yourself a defender with a straight face. And it might be awesome to do so.

Something that D&D designers don't really seem to get is that for a defensive ability to be worthwhile, it has to either not cost an action or be better than an equivalent offensive ability. Healing a part of the damage an enemy deals is not adequate. To defensive actions to be worth anything at all, they need to more awesome.

[Voss]

Actually, the save replaces durations. And for some things, you do have to track the source- if you can impose a save penalty, you have to know that *that* daze condition comes from the wizard, rather than the fighter. You also have to track the source so you know that *that* blind condition has a save, while *that* blind condition ends automatically at the end of the creatures turn. Thats both stupid and insane.

Yeah, I think they expect you to just remember the shit that ends on poeple's turns. while the save stuff you actually write down on our save chart.

The fact that it involves a chart means someone fucked the hell up.

Well you don't really want to eliminate durations, you just want to make them easier to track. So you're not ever asking yourself, "Is the elf's haste still active?"

Because really, I hated that, most of the time I just made something up in 3.5 since I couldn't be bothered to track that shit.

Well, if you really just want that, it lasts for an encounter. Done. Easy, effective, and straightforward.

1 round plus maybe more = shit I don't even want to bother with.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

RandomCasualty2, it depends on DM ruling. For most campaigns a crenelated wall illusion provides total cover (if you are behind a crenelation, which you are because someone on your team made it). If not, screw it and make a total wall and just have the parts that people walk through break down like they burst through it (because they are awesome-strong). You get to sustain the wall for free until your next round (and longer if you concentrate on it), so you can add shit as it happens anyways.

Okay, you caught me, Glitterdust is a SoD/SoS, and not a battlefield control spell. However, the basic concept of A Black Tentacles is the same. The spellcaster cannot cast spells, the monsters can't get to the party. It is defensive in nature because anything that stops monsters is defensive. Battlefield control is about defense.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Well, if you really just want that, it lasts for an encounter. Done. Easy, effective, and straightforward.

1 round plus maybe more = shit I don't even want to bother with.

If debuffs last an entire encounter, that can become very frustrating in that encounter. At the same time, nobody wants to count down timer bars in a tabletop setting. So, what if making a save to remove an effect (or a number of saves to remove a number of effects) was a non-negligible action? Move or Standard or whatever?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Actually, the save replaces durations. And for some things, you do have to track the source- if you can impose a save penalty, you have to know that *that* daze condition comes from the wizard, rather than the fighter. You also have to track the source so you know that *that* blind condition has a save, while *that* blind condition ends automatically at the end of the creatures turn. Thats both stupid and insane.

Yeah, I think they expect you to just remember the shit that ends on poeple's turns. while the save stuff you actually write down on our save chart.

I don't really like that they've got so many ways of ending a duration. It'd be fine if everything was a save of varying DCs. like I said 5,10,15 would be okay. and you'd just right Blind (short) or something next to it, and that'd mean you're blinded on the short term.

But if there are varying save DCs, doesn't that mean you have to keep track of the source, ruining what you think is the most awesome thing about the new save mechanic?

[Voss]

Well, if you really just want that, it lasts for an encounter. Done. Easy, effective, and straightforward.

1 round plus maybe more = shit I don't even want to bother with.

If debuffs last an entire encounter, that can become very frustrating in that encounter. At the same time, nobody wants to count down timer bars in a tabletop setting. So, what if making a save to remove an effect (or a number of saves to remove a number of effects) was a non-negligible action? Move or Standard or whatever?

Thats what I was thinking (and suggested on the last page)

Hell, if they really wanted simple they could have made it 'end of encounter' and the target can try to save- if they succeed, they lose a move?/standard? action, if they fail, the condition continues.

Many of the debuffs 4e tosses around could just be 1 round, and thats punishment enough. Sustain minor strikes me as a superior mechanic for the temporary ones, and making a 'heroic effort' (ie, an action) to overcome the ones that should last longer fits into the game just fine.

This random save crap needs to go, since it seems to punish everyone involved.

[PhoneLobster]

It is defensive in nature because anything that stops monsters is defensive.

This "action denial is defensive" bullshit is completely inane.

Save or Dies must be defensive too. They deny actions really effectively...

[UmaroVI]

Quickie: Reading the 4e DMG, I found that while the XP per encounter chart only shows you precalculated values for 4,5 and 6 person parties, it quite explicitly says how to calculate things for smaller or larger groups. Has anyone tried running the Same Game Test on 4e?

Nearly everyone has built-in teamwork effects now, so I don't know how much it will reveal, but I am curious to see if someone has already done it.

[Username17]

It is defensive in nature because anything that stops monsters is defensive.

This "action denial is defensive" bullshit is completely inane.

Save or Dies must be defensive too. They deny actions really effectively...

Offensive powers are ones which bring opponents closer to dropping.
Defensive powers are ones which keep allies from being brought closer to dropping.

Therefore: Cursing an opponent so that they are easy to hit (like with Faerie Fire) is Offensive, and Cursing an opponent so that they have a harder time hitting is Defensive. Similarly effects like entangle, that grant a to-hit bonus against them and prevent them from attacking have both an offensive and defensive component. But in the case of entangle, the important part is the negated enemy attacks rather than the +2 bonus to hit the targets, so the overall effect is defensive.

I don't know why that is difficult to accept or understand. You cast Entangle to prolong the amount of time the party has to fight before they start dropping, not to make enemies drop faster. So it's obviously a defensive ability.

-Username17

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Having a charm that's permanent to be used in combat just isn't especially balanced, in either edition really. It's better than a save or die, because you actually get an ally on your side. So it's just crazy powerful.

That all depends upon how a specific charm ability is designed. It could be balanced while still being permanent and usable in combat.

There have been entire threads devoted to the topic of the awesomeness of Silent Image. It is a lot better than -2 to attacks.

Yeah, there won't be any basic grappling rules that everyone can use. Though grappling-like powers are certainly possible. With exception based design, pretty much anything is possible.

Here we come to the heart of your argument. It basically boils down to this: "4e can be super awesome in the future because it isn't written yet, and it is exceptions based." That is crap. Arguing that 4e will get better because in the future they will do exactly what they have not done in the first 3 core rulebooks is inane.

[JonSetanta]

Offensive powers are ones which bring opponents closer to dropping.
Defensive powers are ones which keep allies from being brought closer to dropping.

Perhaps a compilation of quick RPG balance facts is needed. Stuff like these lines.
It would be boring but clear a lot of redundan.. ahem.. "inane" repetitions such as this Proactive as Offensive or Defensive debate.

[RandomCasualty2]

RandomCasualty2, it depends on DM ruling. For most campaigns a crenelated wall illusion provides total cover (if you are behind a crenelation, which you are because someone on your team made it). If not, screw it and make a total wall and just have the parts that people walk through break down like they burst through it (because they are awesome-strong). You get to sustain the wall for free until your next round (and longer if you concentrate on it), so you can add shit as it happens anyways.

Remember that even if the other side believes the illusion, it still can't really deflect attacks.

Illusions never provide cover, because cover is about something hard between you and the target. If the attacks can go through it, then what they provide is concealment, since they're closer to fog (which just makes you harder to see) than they are to cover (which actually blocks attacks).

Where illusions get pretty awesome is when you have your allies move through the wall, then backwards (so they autodisbelieve, but then can see through it), that way they get total cover versus the monsters who may know it's an illusion but still have to actively disbelieve it, and until they do they are firing into total concealment. So it's like an invisiblity for archers. Thats pretty nice. Of course melee monsters will just charge right through it once they know it's illusory, so that's a drawback, but you use the arrow slit wall against melee and the full wall against ranged, and you'll do pretty well.

That all depends upon how a specific charm ability is designed. It could be balanced while still being permanent and usable in combat.

I doubt it. Anything that's going to take a foe away from team monster and add him to your team and do so permanently is crazy awesome, unless you put heavy limits on it, like it only works on mooks.

Just the save or die alone itself is pretty awesome, and really I don't think you can fit it in any game that expects monsters to last longer than one round in combat.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

My mistake, I have used the incorrect term. I used the term "cover" where the term "total concealment" should have been used (whichever one grants essentially invisibility for the party and a 50% miss chance). Also, allies don't have to step through the wall to disbelieve it. Especially if they are in the part of a known illusionist, the tactic has been used prior or explained prior to use, and it has the word "ILLUSION" written in big red letters on the side that faces that party .

[Username17]

That all depends upon how a specific charm ability is designed. It could be balanced while still being permanent and usable in combat.

I doubt it. Anything that's going to take a foe away from team monster and add him to your team and do so permanently is crazy awesome, unless you put heavy limits on it, like it only works on mooks.

Just the save or die alone itself is pretty awesome, and really I don't think you can fit it in any game that expects monsters to last longer than one round in combat.

That doesn't follow at all. Let's consider the 4e Succubus' ability charming kiss. What it does it prevent the target from attacking her until she or an ally of hers attacks the character. It's like an inverted sanctuary. And frankly, it isn't even very good in most instances.

If you had exactly that ability, except that you actually had a system of interaction attitudes in the game at all and made the ability work within that structure; then you would have a charm usable both in and out of combat to situationally useful and potentially not game breaking effect. For example: your charming kiss could force the target to a minimum state of Amiable (or whatever) while preventing them from initiating hostilities against the user. That could have some kind of effect or description somewhere in the rules.

Having a Charm ability that isn't game breaking is totally easy. You just have to not have it do what it does in 3e, which is have the monster switch sides on an essentially permanent basis once you've talked to them for an entire minute.

Having a Charm ability that isn't insulting is also totally easy. You just have to not have it do what it does in 4e, which is have literally no effect on the target's choices or attitude in any non-combat situation.

-Username17

[Voss]

And barely any in combat. The main problem is that charm has taken on this weird angle that makes no sense. It shouldn't ever be taken to a mini-domination effect.

Basically, it makes sense if it makes the target you're buddy. He won't brain you (unless you try to kill his friends), but helping you move is pretty much the limit of what he's going to do for you. He isn't going to give you his shit, but he might help you take yours home.

[Harlune]

if I remember it correctly, in Neverwinter Nights they changed charm to something like 'you instantly make the target into your friend, however it still retains any other loyalties it might have to it's own companions, rendering the target conflicted and unable to act in combat'.

Would something like that work? It's pretty much just a longer duration stun that way.

[Ice9]

What's confused/annoyed me is that throughout the 4E previews, mentions were made of changing X ability "for the sake of the players". Like: "We can't have sunder because it sucks when your ancestral sword gets sundered". Or "we can't have effects that remove someone from combat because the player will get bored".

The problem with this? It explains why monsters can't have those abilities, but it gives no reason players can't have them. Who writes the Monster Manual? WotC. If they don't want monsters using a particular tactic - then don't put in any monsters that use the tactic. Done. There's no reason that the PCs can't have sunders or save-or-screwed or whatever else. In fact, since 4E has such asymmetry between even NPCs and players, there's no conflict there either.

Now sure, this breaks down if you go PvP, or the DM decides to make their own sundering, mind-controlling monster. But honestly, the game has never really been balanced for PvP, and if the DM wants to give a monsters a "screw you" ability, they can do it whether the rules support that or not.