Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7675631" data-attributes="member: 5100">The game has survived for 40 years without needing a unified theory of magic. I can see no value in adding one, now. That said, it's relatively harmless because most groups I've played with have had some sort of magical energy field that wizards tap into. My objection probably comes largely from a desire to keep Forgotten Realms setting concepts outside the core books. Keep the flow of ideas and terminology in one direction -- no backwash, please.I'm sure it was, at least in part, because of the original intent to provide setting material &quot;in line&quot; rather than in separate, designated setting books. If there's one place I'd like to see the more invasive form of &quot;errata&quot; used, it'd be in purging the in-line references to the Realms from the second printing of the PHB (the Weave, Faerunian ethnicities, and anything else I may have missed). I'd have zero issues with them being in an appendix, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 7675631, member: 5100"] The game has survived for 40 years without needing a unified theory of magic. I can see no value in adding one, now. That said, it's relatively harmless because most groups I've played with have had some sort of magical energy field that wizards tap into. My objection probably comes largely from a desire to keep Forgotten Realms setting concepts outside the core books. Keep the flow of ideas and terminology in one direction -- no backwash, please. I'm sure it was, at least in part, because of the original intent to provide setting material "in line" rather than in separate, designated setting books. If there's one place I'd like to see the more invasive form of "errata" used, it'd be in purging the in-line references to the Realms from the second printing of the PHB (the Weave, Faerunian ethnicities, and anything else I may have missed). I'd have zero issues with them being in an appendix, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification