Can you define the role of the Balor?

[hong]

IMHO, Balor's role is:[sblock]TPK.
With extreme prejudice.[/sblock]

Cheers, -- N

Nah. A balor is an opportunity to say "you're a balor? It will be an honour to spit you on my blade". Like what we did to that balor in the last dungeon of Age of Worms, or maybe that was a pit fiend.

 

[IceFractal]

Remember this OOTS strip? Well they did it again, possibly worse.

By which I mean, if monster roles are anything like PC roles, then
Leader = Support

To be a "leader" monster, the Balor would have to have "boosting other demons" as one of its major abilities. Not that it couldn't fight as well, but boosting others would be its biggest contribution to the fight.

Even if the monster roles are different, and "leader" actually does mean what it sounds like, the term will still be causing confusion among new players for years to come.

 

[Gimby]

I may well be wrong, but I was under the impression that monsters were not divided into roles as such, rather that monsters would be represented as kind of templates which could be layered over the basic framework provided by the role.

As such, you could have a Balor Brute, a Balor Skirmisher and so on. Depending on what role you wanted it to take in the fight. This might explain the lack of the disguise self and so on SLAs in the spined devil writeup - the "Skirmisher" version doesn't get them (because it doesn't need them to skirmish) but the "Infiltrator" (or whatever) version might.

 

[The Little Raven]

Gah! Watch the red text, I thought you'd modded out on me for a split second.

I would have used black for the effect, but... well... you see the problem with that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Gah! Watch the red text, I thought you'd modded out on me for a split second.

Hehe. It would probably look more like this then:

I am become Moderator Incarnate, Banner of Posters!

 

[crazy_cat]

Yes. Balors exist to kill the PCs and take their stuff.

 

[ruemere]

Depending on 4E incarnation, Balors in combat would be either Brutes (strong, solitary, selfsufficient) or Leader-Brutes (Brute with horde of minions).

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[delericho]

They're demons of the ancient world. Their role is to knock grey wizards off of bridges.

Alternately: brute. And I agree with frankthedm's assessment of what is most likely to be done with them in 4e.

 

[Baby Samurai]

Yes. Balors exist to kill the PCs and take their stuff.

I have a feeling in 4th Ed the Pit Fiend will mug the Balor and take his purse (sword/whip), as Devils will be more humanoid (wield weapons etc) and Demons more beastly (claw your ass etc).

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

I may well be wrong, but I was under the impression that monsters were not divided into roles as such, rather that monsters would be represented as kind of templates which could be layered over the basic framework provided by the role.

As such, you could have a Balor Brute, a Balor Skirmisher and so on. Depending on what role you wanted it to take in the fight. This might explain the lack of the disguise self and so on SLAs in the spined devil writeup - the "Skirmisher" version doesn't get them (because it doesn't need them to skirmish) but the "Infiltrator" (or whatever) version might.

That's because there is a difference between monster roles and PC roles; they're two disjoint sets. The point is, these roles are all defined within the context of the adventuring party; the PCs aren't concerned whether the monsters have a balanced group which can function agilely; their concern is what tactics those monsters will use when they fight the party. Monster roles give us a general idea of how the monster will act in combat.

Also, regarding the Balor, I think they will probably be in the same role as Dragons, as some sort of polymath monster. Of course, that is the default role, and it is possible to apply another in place, such as Brute or Skirmisher, to fit the needs of the particular battle(s) you'll be using them in...