The way they are currently set up the bottom shield is in front of the shield above it, so that when it gets pushed on it is supported by the next shield (which is again supported by the next shield, and so on).

It feels more intuitive that the shield should overlap the other way (instead of the top of your shield being supported by the next shield, the bottom of your shield would be supported by the previous shield) because the final shield in the row has to be the heaviest to hold and the first one is supported by the ground.

I don't think giving them a feature that says "Multiattack: Master Thief makes 3 attacks. Alternatively it can replace any number of those attacks with Cunning Action or Special Action." comes too long or cumbersome. Assuming I understood you right and that is what you are looking to do.

Legendary Actions, as has already been suggested is also a good call.

Or you can just give them 3 actions, that works. Because you are the DM you just have to notice and make a call when an unintended interaction comes up and avoid abusing it. Only thing I can think of is abilities where "as an action" is supposed to translate to "as their turn". Things like breaking out of an Entangle spell. You should probably avoid just doing that multiple times to not make the person who cast the spell feel like it was useless due to this unconventional situation.

Sounds similar to the system they use in WFRP 4e. Also a system that is very elegant and far better than the system used in DnD 5e. Similarly to PF2e (as far as I gather with a brief search) items are assigned a value between 1-3 and players usually have a carry value of around 6 to begin. Any item that is worn gets -1 and items in backpacks/containers do not count towards the limit (but they have weight/bulk/encumbrance points themselves).

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.)

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.

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.