@kviiri I've done the latter in 4e. It was fun.

@BESW Any pitfalls to be aware of in particular?

You might also want to check out Our Very Own @Magician's notes about lair powers.

@kviiri Keep each phase simple. No more than three phases unless there's a really good reason it won't tick your players off.

@BESW Gotchya

@kviiri I've also done bosses that are nothing but constantly regenerating minions, and the way to defeat the boss is a skill challenge which the minions are hindering.

...and then there was the desert kraken with minion tentacles and a boss body, and the only way you could deal its body damage was to wait for someone to be grappled by a tentacle so it would surface to eat you.

Can you tell I got kinda bored with the default 4e combat modes after a while?

@kviiri I think the best JRPG-style boss I ever ran was a character who started out alive, and when they killed him he rezzed as a vampire, and when they killed the vampire he came back as a wraith, and when they killed the wraith he possessed a party member.

@BESW that's amazing. in the same fight?

Yup.

wow XD

He was a recurring villain they'd fought before and had a long history with.

Wait, no, he started as a vampire.

Because they'd killed him the previous time they'd fought him.

His gimmick was "making friends" with mind control and necromancy.

@BESW those were all separate fights

And at the very end, he possessed the lazy warlord/shaman whose specialty was granting other people attacks.... so he started forcing the party to attack each other.

[rummages for notes]

I am really amused though at the idea of a guy who just keeps finding new undead forms to take

Ah, yes, my bad. It was so much worse than that.

When they first encountered him, he was alive, and ran off after they slaughtered his undead friends.

A level later he came back with mind control powers to make the party his new minions. So they killed him.

About five levels after that he showed up as a vampire and they kicked him through a portal to [shrug].

About three levels later, he returned as a wraith. When defeated, he immediately possessed the lazy warlord/shaman as part of the same scene.

When that started to go south, he killed the PC and immediately resurrected it as a bodak.

(The PC's player had to leave island suddenly and so it was actually an NPC in the first session after the player left. I got his permission to kill the character.)

...or, wait, no.

He possessed the PC, then killed it and became a bodak, and when that was killed he came back as a wraith.

Man, that was a messy plotline.

@BESW [now has "we'll just make some ███ up" playing in head]

I hadn't intended him to be a recurring character; he was a random encounter in an adventure I was modifying.

lol

yeah,... I remembered him coming back through multiple fights

He was first a random encounter in the Seven-Pillared Hall, that mountain complex you guys spent a few levels in.

Then he showed up in the secret temple you found inside that mountain.

Later he appeared in that Tomb of Horrors adventure in the Feywild, as a vampire.

@BESW Pretty common with DnD in general I guess :)

And then he killed Bharash in the ruined temple to Ioun where you found the pearl that made the bugbear turn pink.

Oh, and then he showed up as a devil at level 30. Because.

Ooh, I like his effect-shedding power as a level 30 solo.

wow XD

shove negative effects off to a nearby ally

It's important for solo monsters, especially at higher levels, to have a way to shed debuffs or they're so susceptible to lockdown that they aren't a threat at all.

But it's also important not to make players feel like their awesome lockdown powers are being wasted.

This way the effect isn't negated. It's just less strategically useful than the player wanted.

(And if you can get Davith away from his friends, either by killing them or using forced movement, you can stop him from shedding his debuffs.)

(Remember, the theme of Davith the Wicked is always "making friends.")

I personally tried, in 5e, to make every encounter feel like more than just an encounter

I liked the 4E Instinctive Action thing that WOTC put on dragons just before they gave up. It was an extra, specific-to-dragon standard action that'd trigger on their init roll+10 that would also just clear a daze/stun/dominate. So your d/s/d would still do something, but not shut the boss down. And the boss had more stuff to do.

Though I usually have my bosses just produce minions.

Except one guy that would, on top of his own stuff, try to force an action from every PC each turn.

Man, I should run more D&D.

I have a 4e game planned out, with a bit of strategy elements planned to be involved

@BESW was he that guy? I don't even remember him rubbing that in our faces at the time

@trogdor I'm not proud of the implementation of that scene.

The idea being, complete a quest --> receive a reward, a level and access to some service

With the services not including fast travel.

@Frezak I often gave solos an extra whole turn or two each round.

@BESW fair enough, I can claim that about parts of everything I have run so far

less so for this newest 4e campaign but still a little

I didn't want to give them too many things so that the players didn't spend too long just sitting waiting for their turn while the giant screaming skeleton did his six actions or whatever.

Lol

Giant screaming skeleton

He was on fire, too.

He's just trying to practice for his band guys!

@Frezak oooh pyrotechnics

I think the Gnoll took his (giant) skull and later gave it to some urchin crime lord.

He gave it away? Sheesh

To be fair, he didn't own a mantlepiece to put it on.

Lol

I suppose lugging it around forever is too much

I was very disappointed that he never tried to use it for a hat.

@Frezak That's smart

I think one of my biggest 4e mistakes was forgetting the logistics

@kviiri Yeah. So the one boss that did have a ton of stuff on his turn was all about commanding the party to move around and attack. And it was stuff like: "attack that person." or "Go there." Keeping it vague to given them some agency over how they fought each other.

One thing I've been thinking about is, how do I telegraph enemy abilities to my players well

Do you need to?

@Frezak he most likely couldn't tell them to do more than use at will powers anyway

I'm somewhat reminded of Enki from Gurren Lagann. It's a mech piloted by the beastman Viral, and it's eventually defeated and destroyed. It gets rebuilt as Enkidu, which lasts a shorter time. Much later Enkidudu gets made, which gets defeated in the same scene it appears. Then there was a radio show sequel featuring Enkidududu, which got destroyed in seconds, and Enkidudududu, which got destroyed before the character finished their first sentence in it.

@Frezak I think it improves the experience, so at least I'd want to

@trogdor I left it up to the players. Strangely, none of them wanted to use their reds or blacks on the others! Mysterious!

In 4e, it would be extremely overpowered to be able to force an enemy to use powers that were not at will

@Frezak hehehe

@kviiri Well, within the rules you can encourage monster knowledge checks: hitting a hard DC basically lets them look at your monster notes.

> The character identifies the monster and knows its origin, type, typical temperament, and keywords. If the character meets of exceeds the hard DC for the monster's level, he or she knows the monster's resistances and vulnerabilities, as well as what its powers do.

I've been wondering about that - leaving intel like that up to a die roll feels odd to me

Agreed, but it's very D&D.

So, for example, they know how to make a paladin's mark go away if they're marked.

And they know that if a fighter's got them marked, they get -2 to attack anyone else.

@trogdor Yeah, but in this case I left it up to them what attack they made. So, like ,the pacifist laser cleric got to pick if she wanted to paint her allies as targets or wade into melee to make basically harmless weapon attacks.

that is pretty cool

I do think leaving it up to them is nicer

and in some ways actually cooler too

A particular case I've been thinking about: an encounter about spreading out. The party's facing bow-wielding enemies who use an At-Will power that's basically a watered-down version of the Ranger daily "Split the Tree" - it allows targeting two enemies within 3 squares for 1[W] + dexmod each.

The PCs would likely meet someone who's fought these archers before, who'd warn them that it's best to keep distance to one's friends because these guys shatter tight formations in no time. But how much distance would be up to the players' guesswork unless I told them, and I'd hate to ruin the moment by declaring two squares not to be enough.

@kviiri I had one fight where the players had to approach a defended location that had crossbowmen that had +2 to hit +some damage on targets that weren't in cover. So they had to go from tree to tree to get close.

I could go full MGS and say "keep at least three empty squares between each other and yer fine". Or more in-universe, "keep at least fifteen feet between each other", although I think that sounds weirder.

I think a good principle for 4e is "if you've seen it, you understand it."

Hm, that makes sense

So even if they don't learn about the two-pronged attack from an NPC, after they've seen it once they know what it does.

So I could declare the first time they attack how the attack works

Good idea!

4e's tactical nature isn't based on slowly figuring out how mechanics work. It's based on exploring the interplay between known mechanics.

A little surprise sometimes is fine, but don't drag it out.

Surprises are not to my taste. At least that kind.

But that'd be minor enough to work, so I'll try that out!

An example of a mechanical surprise I think worked.

That was good.

You certainly enjoyed it the first time!

I did!

"Congratulations, you are now a Chaos Mother"

Yesterday, I thought we found a fey crossing while geocaching

We left this perfectly respectable looking suburb on a little path and suddenly we were in a forest where the only signs of civilization were an odd assortment of discarded objects and the distant roar of a highway. It was wet, though.

I guess it might've also been the Elemental plane of Swamps and Filth.

That sounds lovely.

You almost walked into the Feywild, probably.

@BESW cough -3 cough :P

@doppelgreener imgur.com/a/NnINF

Crossing that bridge probably would've done it

Hm, imgur doesn't onebox

Let's try again

There

(sorry about the sky being bleached)

Whoa

Not what I was expecting but I'm also not disappointed

It was a weird place. Someone had gone through the trouble to build that... er, bridge there.

But there was literally nothing of value on the other side either, except more sparse forest to explore.

...you don't see the masquerade right there on the other side of the bridge?

Nah but it's probably just my poor vision

@Miniman not every fighter takes that feat

XD :P

@trogdor But every Warden does.

@kviiri [grin] A masquerade is a kind of... spirit, might be one of the better words to use? in some African cultures, like the Igbo. Some of them are performed in sacred dances, using costumes that sometimes look a lot like that root system on the opposite side of the bridge.

Ooh, okay

hey guys, what was the best of RPG that makes you keep playing the games?

Other masquerades are too powerful, or sacred, or possess other qualities which make their performance either impossible, or secret. To see such a masquerade is a life-changing event.

@HanProgramer Hi! Are we talking about tabletop RPGs?

@BESW So you don't mean a bunch of italian people stabbing and poisoning each other at a party, then?

@Frezak Your party turns into a mass murder one time and nobody lets you ever forget it.

@BESW And that's why we keep coming each time! And it's always disappointing!

Morning, Nerds

morn lizard?

@trogdor I mean, the story stuff around it might put people off, I guess. But "be 50% better at your main job" is way too hard to go past, for me.

Yeah, if your GM allows it, it's definitely a "need a reason not to" feat.

@BESW Which probably means it shouldn't be there! A feat that everyone should take is a bad feat. Well, not everyone everyone, but all Defenders.

@Frezak Yep. I think it's this chat where I learned the name for that - feat tax.

@doppelgreener moar lizard?

I'm having an urge to play Apocalypse World

@kviiri feat tax can be difficult to avoid sometimes as you get to the situation where a feat is useless or ends up in the optimized build (thus, feat tax). Of course, if you chose features for reasons other that optimization than you can avoid the problem all together

Must work on the thesis, although that's acting under fire. The fire being the terrible urge to play.

2d6

Ouch.

@DavidCoffron Good design balance makes it so much easier to not optimize, though.

^ true that

I know because I've been playing in a group very averse to powergaming where everyone optimizes their characters.

@NautArch (and anybody else) do you think I need to put Crawford in this answer? Can a charmed person harm their charmer with Burning Hands?

@kviiri Was that roll to resist the urge to play or to motivate your thesis work? Definitely changes how that result is narrated lol.

@Rubiksmoose My stance on Crawford is pretty much always that if you want a bit of extra backup for an answer, it's an option.

@Rubiksmoose That was my roll to work on the thesis :)

A player in my table might've suffered psi-damage from that.

But unless it made it into official Sage Advice, Crawford-only answers are kinda terrible.

^^^ agreed

I've quoted Crawford many times but I'm a bit uncomfortable about it

@Miniman Yeah I've made a few of those. Always feels really dirty.

@Miniman Crawford-only answers are some times all we can offer as the books are shaky in spots

@DavidCoffron "in spots" lol

Hahaha

Crawford is shaky too, but he's officially sanctioned shaky

@DavidCoffron Oh, absolutely. But even then, I'd rather something like "the books don't say one way or another, so it's up to your DM. But hey, here's what Crawford says about it".

I guess that makes a lot of sense. I'll probably work that into any future Crawford-only answers

@Rubiksmoose I agree with @Miniman. It's good (and seemingly required now) support for an answer. I also think speedkat's answer utilizes a rulebook quote that's even better - but JC tweets aren't bad to have.

@Miniman That is the best way to go. I should go back and fix some of my answers to say that as they come up again. My answers have definitely changed style over the few months I've been around.

Like a "here are the relevant rules but they are unclear (here's why ambiguous)." Then... "here's Crawford"

@NautArch The problem with that quote though is that fireball calls the creature in its AOE "targets" explicitly in the spell effect description. So fireball is actually one of the few spells which is not ambiguous on this point and thus not a terribly good example to clear up the ambiguity for other spells.

@Rubiksmoose Flame strike is also included

@NautArch good point!

but i see what you mean, and your quote specifically calls out burning hands

is latest question a dupe?

I recall similar issues being discussed but not specifically that

@NautArch probably a dupe

i'll let some votes occur first :)

i guess ObliviousSage decided to make the call on previous editions or not.

There's a good answer somewhere about firebolt and setting things on fire. can't find it atm

@goodguy5 did you see my linked question?

yea. that's not the one I'm looking for, not as I remember it anyway

@goodguy5 are you thinking of the infamous designer intent question about this same topic?

@Rubiksmoose I think so

@goodguy5 Well all those answers are deleted now, but I can give you the text of a particular one if you wanted.

@trogdor My son has spent exactly zero dollars on Hearthstone. (I bought the recent expansion pack preorder, because I can). He's done OK in ranked games, sometimes getting to 5. But IIRC, he began playing the game almost when it came out, and if you play a little each day, and are picky about how you convert dust ...

@Rubiksmoose wait why can I see deleted answers. Is that a bug?

@DavidCoffron btw congrats on passing 10k!

> and then make into dust stuff that goes out of date (I do not play wild) you can make competitive decks.

Oh yeah. I completely forgot about that...

@DavidCoffron It's a feature of 10 k rep. :)

@Rubiksmoose ah, thank you. that explains why I couldn't see it.

That's the answer I wanted to link as "related"

@goodguy5 It is the first thing I thought of as well when I read the question lol

@Rubiksmoose I guess that the stack can congratulate itself for running off another casual user. sad face I note that Chad has become user2015 ... sigh

@goodguy5 I think I remember reading something from Crawford or Mearls about why they're fireproof. I'll go digging (it might have been a dragon talk too so it'll take a while...)

@KorvinStarmast oh no! he had a lot of good ideas too...

Always makes me sad :(

@KorvinStarmast Sometimes the rules feel restrictive for someone who just wants a little bit of info - but the format of the stack isnt right for an answer that's anecdotal. More of a question for chat or something i guess

(related to 5e) I kind of miss the 3.x/pf thing where a wizard could leave some spells unmemmorized, in order to have more versatility later.

@KorvinStarmast It was probably that meta that did it if I had to guess. Meta can be brutal even for experienced users...

@goodguy5 What's "unmemorized"?

In this sense I mean

@kviiri unprepared I assume?

So they'd be able to prepare during the day taking less time, or?

@Rubiksmoose More than the meta, by a lot. But I will not comment further as I can't undo any of what happened. :(

I really wish they didn't call spell slots that...

That'd be really strong in 5e with so many conditionally good spells (im not super familiar with 3.x/PF spell lists)

@DavidCoffron Well, I mean... they "fixed" it by having ritual spells that largely do the same thing

@goodguy5 5e no workee that way, unless you are referring to arcane recovery?

@goodguy5 Mmkay, makes sense. @DavidCoffron is right though, it probably would be a balance nightmare. Especially since "time" usually doesn't have much of a fixed cost.

@KorvinStarmast no, I know it doesn't. I was just lamenting a difference from previous editions.

I actually got to ask that question directly to Mearls and JC at Gencon... 2014?

whatever year was release year

Which one? Fire, or spell slots?

@KorvinStarmast spell slots and delayed preparation

@KorvinStarmast oh.... :'(

@goodguy5 personally, I prefer it this way. It makes preparation a much more meaningful and diverse decision. You get to weigh the risks of not preparing certain spells much more often. Also makes divination, knowledge checks, and other knowledge-gaining activities more meaningful.

@goodguy5 I see it as a fiddly bit, but I can also see its appeal particularly in light of the short rest mechanic

@KorvinStarmast are there any lessons learned that we can take away to prevent it from occurring in future? (I don't want to disturb latent drama though so if I am doing then let me know)

@DavidCoffron Well, they also changed the way spell slots work. So Wizards can prepare extra spells that they don't plan to cast.

@goodguy5 true. I always forget that you prepare with slots in those systems.

@Rubiksmoose Not with the norms that RPG.SE has in place at present. Those norms were established over a four-five year incubation period, and seem to have settled into place.

@DavidCoffron Yea. Which is why having the ability to have that flex-slot was so useful

Not really my expertise, but aren't wizards really flexible compared to sorcerers anyway?

@Kviiri depends on what you mean by flexible

I hate it when anons think "I have no idea why there is written ramparts,... let's replace it with moat", when mats are exactly the opposite: the simplest rampart is just a long pile of earth

@kviiri sort of, sorcerers are very flexible in that the spells they know they always have. Wizards are only more flexible if you can predict what spells you will need

@kviiri If you assume that a wizard will get access to all spells and can copy all spells into their book ... that is somewhat at odds with the idea of wizards finding spells as part of their entire character experience. That said, you do get "free" two more spells at each level up ...

@Trish I am trying to understand what you mean by that.

rpg.stackexchange.com/posts/115415/revisions

@KorvinStarmast They are referring an edit that was just made

@DavidCoffron But the wizard can prepare what, Intelligence modifier + wizard level spells, right?

moat=DOWN, they did pile earth UP

which makes it a rampart.

@Trish thank you.

@DavidCoffron That's competitive with (and probably more than) what a sorcerer knows at all, right?

(unless playing a low-int joke build)

@Trish My apologies btw. I approved that edit.

if it is ONE word... please look it up, if they exchange it for something else.

@Trish I know what the words mean.

because the difference from "defensive earthe work wall" to "ditch" is opposite

@KorvinStarmast They do get free spells as they level, yup, at a pace matching the Sorcerer's if I recall correctly

@Trish A ram part might be a tail, or a horn, while a rampart is a defensive earthwork. 8^D Is that helpful?

And the point I'm trying to make is that even if they can't prepare all of those, they can prepare about as many if not more than a Sorcerer can have "prepared".

heh, yea @KorvinStarmast ... my typing sucks today

@Kviiri more by a good bit f you go to level 20. (IIRC, they start with six and get two per level which yields 44))

Normally when you say that you "dig" something it means you are going down. Hence my confusion.

@kviiri Sorcerers get more cantrip than wizards, but you are right. They are about the same, but sorcerers have metamagic

@Rubiksmoose Can you dig it?

:)

Bother, I just had to change my answer to include a JC tweet that actively disagrees with my view. I still stand by my stance, but it probably won't prove too popular now...

@DavidCoffron flexibility in how you use spells vs flexibility in spells.

@Tiggerous I'd give you a +1000 for integrity though.

Has any of you played a wild magic sorcerer? It appears to be a neat sub class, but the wild magic piece looks like added work for a DM; a pity that can't be offloaded to the player.

@Tiggerous ?

But if youre not playing sorcerer to get wild magic surges youre doing it wrong ;P

I dislike when people will actively ignore things that directly contradict your answer. At least acknowledge them and try to explain why you think your explanation should supercede the contradictory information or whatever.

Two weapon fighting mechanic and dueling fighting style

@DavidCoffron I wish those surges happened with more frequency.

I think wild magic is one of those generally disliked things in 5e, but I don't really recall the specific suck in it except what Korvin said.

@KorvinStarmast it's not that much added work for the DM (I've had a wild magic sorcerer before). You just let them get back Tides of Chaos when it feels right

@Tiggerous isn't a thrown melee weapon (without the thrown trait) an improvised weapon?

Oh yeah, it's a wacky roll table. Not a fan of those, really...

@DavidCoffron But if youre not playing sorcerer to get wild magic surges youre doing it wrong As I've not played one, I am not sure that I understand you.

@SevenSidedDie wasn't that question about Rötschreck ok as it was in the last iteration (asking for designer reasons only)?

@Tiggerous Isn''t this question a dupe then?

@kviiri It's a Wand of Wonder with two feet ...

@Rubiksmoose I believe so... not sure how that relates?

@NautArch Which one do you think is a dupe?

@NautArch If it is no one has pointed it out yet, which question do you think it's a dupe of?

@KorvinStarmast Yesterday's Question is a dupe of a much older question @Rubiksmoose

Ok, I tossed in a "dupe of that one" vote, so it's closed as a dupe now.

@KorvinStarmast @KorvinStarmast that was a joke lol, but it Is a fun subclass

I hope you agree. Nathan seems to agree.

@NautArch but they have oppsite answers

@DavidCoffron Not getting the joke, but no worries, your pay raise is not impacted by that fact. :)

4e Wild Magic Sorcerers have randomness much more frequently, but the effects are much more limited

@goodguy5 We don't close based on answers, we closed based on question (i thought)

@NautArch 100% correct.

and these are identical questions. THe difference is in the potential use case, but that's also answered in the older question.

@NautArch my point is: how do we know which answer is right?

@NautArch That's not a dupe. It's very similar. The old question asks "Can I get Duelist on my first attack, then draw my second weapon for an offhand attack?" This question asks "If I throw my first weapon before drawing my second, can I get the Duelist bonus on both attacks?"

They have a random damage type resisted and ignoring enemy resistances (changes each long rest) and gain bonuses from attack rolls: odd rolls give AC, even rolls allow extra saves against bad effects.

@Tiggerous Yeah I was just sifting through that as well and thinking the same thing. Or starting to. They are very similar but maybe are exploring different interactions between the same two features.

@NautArch @goodguy5 Answer on the old question looks wrong to me, personally.

@Tiggerous If you replace "throw" with "attack" how is that different?

@Nautarch Because the first one asks about applying Dueling bonus once, the second asks if it's possible to apply it twice.

@goodguy5 I don't think you need to be holding both weapons when you make the first attack to RAW get the benefit. But if that's what you think, then that's a different answer to the new question, so write it up.

@Tiggerous I'm still seeing just a different application of the same combination, and the explanation of how that combination works applies to both. But both are asking "how does this combination work?"

@Tiggerous wait, how is that different than your answer?

@NautArch The old question is asking "can I get a damage bonus once". The second is asking "can I get a damage bonus twice"

@Tiggerous and I think Crawford's answer still generally works - especially if you look at as the 2nd attack being the thrown weapon.

@NautArch but answers don't matter for duplicates right?

@NautArch But the OP asked about throwing the first weapon, not the second weapon? I feel lkie you're confusing things.

This one is a close call though and I stopped looking into it actually so I have no opinion on the matter

@Rubiksmoose correct.

I'm certainly getting confused now :P

@Tiggerous A 'throw' is still an attack. Just ranged vs melee.

@NautArch I don't think anyone's arguing it isn't...

@Tiggerous I think my argument is that the newer question is a subset of the older question, but the older question is still valid because it includes that consideration AND the answers also work for it.

Sort of like, Can I drink and walk at the same time vs Can I drink juice and walk at the same time.

@NautArch is it an obvious enough subset that the answer clearly addresses it?

@Rubiksmoose I think the answers to the old one do address the subset.

@NautArch Then I think you are right to dupe it.

(again, not having looked into it actually myself)

OK, "The old question is can I use "Dueling" once while two weapon fighting?" The new question is "Can I use Dueling twice while two weapon fighting?". The only way to answer both questions at once is to say "No, Dueling is never allowed while two weapon fighting"

However, if you believe that using Dueling once is possible while two weapon fighting, that doesn't have to mean that using Dueling twice while two weapon fighting is also possible .

And using it twice is the whole point of the new question. The old question never covers that possibility at all.

@goodguy5 the question starts by asking "Can I use two weapon fighting if I'm not already wielding both weapons when I make my first attack". Both my answer and the other say that he can do so. You are arguing that he could not, that is how your answer would be different.

Sorry for killing chat.

The old question asks and has answers for "How do these combine and can I get the two-weapon fighting if I'm not holding both at the first attack?. The new question asks "How do these combine and can I get DUeling damage on both attacks". I think you're right in that they ARE different, but we need to reword the question. THe answer does rely on the first question, as they can't use TWF without holding two light weapons at time of attack.

@Tiggerous I think a rephrasing of the new question should reopen it, and I think your answer can be improved by focusing on the TWF not being available to even take the bonus action attack.

related

@NautArch That wouldn't be an improvement of my answer. That would be a fundamentally different answer. I'm happy to let someone else make that arguement.

That'sa good related question, thanks.

@Tiggerous okay, if we reopen I'll put together an answer based on that.

Related: So, it's impossible when TWF to use your bonus action (offhand) attack first?

@Tiggerous I'm not sure I understand?

@Tiggerous yes the Attack action to attack enables the TWF rule

@NautArch This is utterly unrelated to the question. But at my table I've let my Rogue PC take his (Bonus Action) offhand attack, before his main hand attack (Action). You're more restrictive reading of TWF would preclude that right, it has to be Attack Action followed by Bonus Action Attack?

Hmm, something to think about... I may have to nerf him slightly...

@Tiggerous Not really. THey can take the offhand first, but both weapons need to be drawn.