The short text at the back of the book/cover that is usually a summary of what the book is about, I believe. Also often had some short reviews, like the op title refers to. (The stuff you look at when you are deciding if you want to read the book or not, generally.)

It’s equally, or more, correct to say “female/male people”. It’s just like “poor people” is ok, but “the poors” makes you sound like an asshat. Including “people” makes the difference.

I’m guessing they are refering to Dragon Ball (Goku). Whose original voice actress (in Japanese) is Masako Nozawa.

I mean, in Norway we have the Pirate Party (that’s their official name) and they seem like an alright bunch. It’s a political party trying to champion online privacy.

As far as I’ve gathered Valve “accidentally” created the elf tag instead when the dwarf tag campaign happened. When someone noticed they went “oh, whoopsie, hehe” and added the dwarf tag too. So elf should also be a tag now.

Over here in Norway it seems like Fairytale of New York is played on the radio almost every day of December and surprisingly often otherwise.

Fellow Norwegian here. Seems like you’ve encountered a classic “sær skrivingsfeil”. (For non-norwegians: The type of mistake described in the main post is called “særskrivingfeil”, “sær skrivingsfeil” means “odd/weird writing error” and is itself a mistake of the “særskrivingsfeil” type.)

Personally I would probably answer the sj/kj issue, but I saw that you’ve mentioned it in a comment, and after thinking a little about it there is a bigger issue I have: People don’t love the langauge. What I mean is that Norwegian is a beautiful language with many amazing words, but because people don’t love it there is a perception that the langauge is “limited” or “boring”. I’d love to read books in Norwegian, but the fact is that most authours/translators I’ve come across aren’t very good at Norwegian, and it makes the book worse to read. Part of this issue is with machine translation. I was talking to a family member about this, and he mentioned that he had noticed a trend in the Donald Duck comics (which are/were hugely popular in Norway) from when he was young, and the lead translator of the comics was a teacher of Norwegian who loved the language, and the newer ones, after machine translation has taken over, and the difference was night and day. However, just to not be entierly negative I’ll give you an example of someone who did this well: the people who translated the Spook’s series (Den Siste Lærling) did a stellar job in my estimation with giving the names of things good Norwegian names and generally translating it well.

English, on the other hand, I feel like has not suffered as much from this, because they have benefited greatly from prominent writers who loved the language. I’m talking particularly within the sphere of fantasy, as that is where I am most familiar, where people like Tolkien and Gary Gygax are both extremely prominent writers who loved English and would use all those words that would (I think) have fallen out of the language if they hadn’t put them in the public eye. I also think that while others who aren’t as invested in the language would go on and write later, they would borrow some of the style from these earlier writers, because that’s what the genre “sounds like”. I think Norway needs a movement like this. People who dig up obscure Norwegian words that they can use as lables for things, and by doing that thrusts those words into the minds of readers, who will look up the definitions of those words and have richer lexicons as a result.

Another Norwegian here. The sidene between the two is that words have stress, and compound words thus (generally) only has one (primary) stress. So “prinsesse pult” has stress on both words while “prinsessepult” only had one stress. (Also, in my dialect “pult” meaning desk is pronounced /pult/ while “pult” meaning fuck is pronounced /pu:T/ (capital T standing in for retrofleks t in this case) so pronounced that way “prinsessepult” becomes “fucked like a princess”)

Ah, yes, sorry. I mixed up my terminology a bit there, good catch. Every instance of “round” in my comment was supposed to be “turn”. I’ll edit it. But yes, sneak attack is also once per turn, and not round, which is very odd. It honestly seems like an oversight that just happily caused the balance for the rogue to catch up a bit. Rogue doesn’t really have any ways to consistently trigger it, and while it seems like it might be a case of “extra attacks should get the same effects as regular attacks” (if that makes sense to you) then it is extremely odd that the Barbarian’s advantage from Reckless Attack doesn’t last for the round, only for your own turn. So AoOs don’t have the advantage.

Honestly, as far as I’ve seen most spells aren’t an issue. Only sorcerer quickened spell really makes it an issue, but that’s mainly an issue with quickened spell rather than anything else.

I also believe Jeremy Crawford or someone has mentioned that balance wasn’t the concern when the role was put in place. I’m not able to look for the source right now, but I think Treantmonk had it in a video about this rule.

Yeah, the more I play DnD and other games, the less I end up liking 5e’s system of action, bonus action, reaction. Systems that just have actions are much more appealing, imo.

I don’t like this rule at all. Definitely among one of my least favorite rules in 5e. There are several things wrong with this rule. First, the stated reason why this rule exists is not balance, but it exists to make sure that a spellcasters turn isn’t taking too long, by limiting them to only one ‘noodly’ spell per turn to stop them from flipping through the books trying to find the two perfect spells per turn, rather than just one (cantrips are easier to remember and use, I suppose). Unfortunately it fails at this in my opinion because of reason number two: the placement in the book. The rule is listed under the “bonus action spells” header in the spellcasting section. This is right between the “action spells” and “reaction spells” sections, and both of those just say “You can casts a spell with an action/reaction” and have no real rules. So people basically glance over it and assume there’s nothing important there. This means that new players (thepeople who will take a ton of time on their turns if they have to find two spells) don’t know this rule exist. The people who do know about this rule don’t need it, because they already know what spells they want to use and are much faster at taking their turns (hopefully). Also, the fluff is entierly nonsensical “Because bonus actions spells are espescially swift, you [can’t cast other spells on the same turn]”, what? Wouldn’t it make more sense that swift spells would leave you with more time to cast other spells?

Honestly, it’s even worse than that, because once you know the rule it actually causes the game to slow down because of how noodly it is. When you are casting a spell you stop and think “Wait a minute, is this allowed according to the bonus action casting rule?”, and then you have to find that out (hopefully not on your turn, but it causes you to have to look up this rule more that you really should have to look up any rule). If I am DMing I really don’t care about my players following this rule, but if I am playing I will always follow it to the letter (unless the DM says otherwise, of course), because I have had to look this rule up so many times I can now quote it verbatim from memory.

I think that this rule could be ok, but it needs some changes. First it needs to have it’s own section in the rules book “Casting multiple spells in a turn”, or something. Don’t hide it among stuff people skip over. Second, it should probably be changed to just “Because the casting of spells is a taxing affair, you can not cast more than one spell of first level or higher in the same turn.”. This is how most people think the rule works anyway, the fluff makes a ton more sense, it is simple enough that you don’t have to look it up constantly, and as a bonus it finally would answer all those people who are very confused about how you can cast counterspell in the middle of casting your other spell (you wouldn’t be able to, because that would be two leveled spells in a turn, except it you are counter-counterspelling to save your cantrip, I suppose. But that’s a very strange edge case.)

As a testament to how terrible this rule is, not even this is the right one. The rule is, when you cast a spell (including cantrips) with your bonus action you can’t cast any other spells except a cantrip with a casting time of one action on the same turn. So casting Shillelagh stops you from casting leveled spells and (although I’m not sure why you would want to) from using your action to start or continue casting a cantrip like Mending, because it has a cast time of 1 minute (Aka 10 actions, aka not one action).

Works perfectly both if you just know the general beats of the story and also if you’ve read it. The mark of a great joke.

It depends. You might say something like “I’ve got a meeting from 12 to 14”, which is perfectly natural. But also a lot of the time you might just say “I go to bed at 9” because the context makes it obvious that you mean 9 in the evening. Most people don’t go to bed in the morning. Unless you do, but then you would probably give context “I’m going to bed at 9 in the morning, because I work nights”, for example.

I disagree, just because the name makes people confused about the real (and really cool) polearm: the glaive.

I’d say I go for mostly lore friendly, but with a touch of glowing bits. Pink mesmers sound completely right, though.

Well, Judas had already made plans to and agreed to betray Jesus (Matthew 26:14-16) before the last supper (Matthew 26:21), so in effect the betrayal had already begun at the time this painting is depicting. At the same time, Jesus spends a lot of words here repeating that the betrayal has been foretold and has to happen (Matthew 26:53-54), to in a sense Judas did have to betray him, as was foretold. Depends on how you think free will and prophesy interacts. (All references from the New International Version of the Bible at biblica.com)

Because the person deploying the kiwi is Rook from Rainbow 6: Siege, and Rook is French. (Normally he deploys a pack of body armour that his team can grab from.)

Not a new one I’m playing, but the Trine series are great 1-3 couch (or online, I believe) coop games. Only note is that the third game is pretty different from the rest, and also suffers from some over-ambition and under-delivering. It can safely be skipped, but I personally also like it, despite it’s flaws.