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.

In Norway I’ve only seen eggs sold in packs of 6, 12, 18, or 24. As far as I can remember, anyway.

Also Aid Worker Sya from Guild Wars 2. Minor character, but still.

“Jake likes onions”. Seems like the newer ones are signed with “Thompson” as well.

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”)

So JC supports the reading that the weapon becomes an Inprovised Weapon that doesn’t have any properties then. (Honestly, I feel like Improvised Weapons, along with Unarmed Attacks, could probably be on the table of weapons.)

I think if one is being nitpicky, the reading of the Ammunition Property is that it specifically calls out weapons with ammunition as being treated as Improvised Weapons (which would come with not being able to use the weapon’s properties or proficiency, or at least so it seems to me), rather than redirecting you to read a different part of the rules section. It would be odd (and honestly it is a bit odd with the normal reading as well) to have two distinct properties that qualifies something to fall under the same rule (being a Ranged Weapon and having the Ammunition Property), particularly when one is always going to contain the other.

And the Thrown property on the Dart being useless only really becomes a problem if you take this very specific and nitpicky ruling to be good, which honestly mostly serves as evidence that reading the rules that way is not RAI. It seems to be the RAI intention that the Dart having the Thrown Property is to allow you to use your proficiency for the attack, which you would not be able to if you threw an Improvised Weapon (such as if you were to throw a Sickle).

If you look at the Ammunition Property it says “If you use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon”, which I read as meaning your weapon is an Improvised Weapon rather than a Ranged Weapon. Although I do concede that the improvised weapons rule says that if you are using a Ranged Weapon to make a Melee Attack it will deal 1d4 damage, which I assume means that you can’t use the rule that says that you can treat it like another similar weapon, which I think is odd, but ok.

(Also, if you want to be very nitpicky about it, the ammunition property says you can’t make ranged attacks without loaded ammunition, but any type of attack will spend your ammunition. However, I don’t think that’s a fair reading, and I think the ammunition property simply does not apply, because you are using it as an Improvised Weapon and therefore none of the Properties apply.)

I suppose if you really wanted to get into the details, the rules in the Ammunition section would not apply to weapons that are Ranged Weapons, but do not have the Ammunition Property, like the Dart or Net. But I feel like it would be most reasonable to rule that these are also considered Improvised Weapons and not Ranged Weapons that deal 1d4 damage if used to make a Melee Attack. (Although the Net can not deal damage as per it’s Special Property, so that doesn’t really apply to it, so you would be left with the Dart, which doesn’t have the Heavy Property, and thus isn’t really relevant to the greater discussion here.)

This doesn’t really work as far as I can tell, RAW or RAI. While it is the case that in theory a Melee Attack with a Heavy Ranged Weapon would satisfy both criteria, there is no weapon that can normally perform such an attack, as far as I’m aware. Using a Heavy Crossbow or a Longbow to make a Melee Attack would be attacking with an Improvised Melee Weapon, which is both not a Ranged Weapon and does not have the Heavy property, so neither Feat would be useful.

If we are being generous we could say that attacking with a Heavy Crossbow would be like a Club and a Longbow would be like a Staff, and per the Improvised Weapons rules we could use those weapon stats for our Improvised Weapon, however, note that neither of these have the Heavy property, so you would be unable to use either Feat in this case as well. (The Heavy property, particularly on Ranged Weapons, seems to be not about the weight of the weapon (an intrinsic property of the thing), but about the strength required to attack with such a weapon in it’s intended manner. In this way it would make sense that neither Feat would work.)

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

Yeah, as mentioned by Aielman15, Fighters tend to not have a good Charisma. So it’s actually not just that Martials only have skills, but they are usually worse at those skills compared to Casters (barring Rogue, who is only outclassed by Bard). (Note: I use Martial here to mean “class without the Spellcasting pr Pact Magic features in their base class” and Caster to mean "class that counts fully for Spellcasting multiclassing and Warlock.)

Martials tend to excel in Strength, Dexterity, and/or Constitution and usually be middling at best in other stats. Since there is only one skill associated with Strength: Athletics, while, other stats have at least 3 each (except Constitution) a Strength based character will be worse at skills than other characters. Of course the relative strength of the different skills will vary depending on your table, but I think we can at least all agree that the Charisma based ones tend towards the top. They also don’t get any more Proficiencies or Expertises than any other class (Bard and Rogue are again the exceptions).

In essence, pointing to the skill system doesn’t really help, as Martials aren’t usually any better than Casters at them, or are even worse in some cases.

It’s a thing in Norway too, at least, and this is a good anwer.

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)

On the topic of the title: I conceptually like how Soulbound have integrated players making quests. As a downtime activity (or “endeavour”) a player can choose to “investigate a nemesis”, meaning that the player gets to work with the GM to make a new villain for the story, and in return they get a bit of extra xp when the villain is defeated.

However, I haven’t actually seen this option be used (nor have I really played enough for there to be many options to), so I’m not certain how it would shake out in play.

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.