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.

Except cows can see colour. They only have 2 types of colour receptors in their eyes, compared to humans 3, (missing the red one, from what I gather with 30 sec of googling?) so their colour vision is much more limited compared to ours, but they are not colour blind.

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

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.

Meanwhile my fighter has 18 strength and is encumbered by the items he got from character creation... I don't think 5e did a very good job with encumbrance. There is a reason most people ignore it.

Command has a range of 60 ft. If it was 5 ft. the approach command would be pretty useless.

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.

Darklurker. But honestly I don't get all the hype for bosses in any of the games. The parts I enjoy the most often aren't the bosses.

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.)

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.

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.)

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)