Psychic Power? Magic Power? Or just bad wording?

[Elydis 0]

So i finally got my hands on Anima and i was planning to make a Psychic/Ki character. So the question here now is. Do i need to take the advantage "Access to One Psychic Discipline" to gain the option to affiliate myself to a dicipline.

Here is the iffy part, under the PP section "Affinity with a psychic discipline". It states that players need to spend PP permanently invest 1 PP to gain affinity. No other prerequisites are stated, and an example is even given that a player can affiliate him/her-self to all discipline if they but spend their PPs.

I am working under the assumption that the psychic powers are similar to magic in terms of acquiring them. To access magic spells (to my understanding, correct me if i am wrong.), one must first pick the advantage "The Gift". So working along that lines, i would assume psychic powers are not something everyone has access to, thus needing us to take the advantage "Access to One Psychic Discipline" before we are allowed to manifest psychic abilities.

I found it quite perplexing that, in the book itself. Such requirements are not stated clearly and concisely. Even under the magic section, The Gift was only touched on fluff wise with implications that one must have the gift before using magic. It would be nice if it was stated clearly like "Players are required to pick the advantage, The Gift before they are allowed access to their magical abilities".

This is all under the assumption that my original train of thought is correct. The other possibility i believe is the advantages like The Gift and Access to One Psychic Discipline, are there so players need to choose them in order to get Magic/Psychic advantages? It is stated under the magic/psychic advantages, that one must first have taken The Gift and an advantage that grants access to psychic before they can obtain their magic/psychic advantages.

Any ideas?

[Exarkfr 129]

So i finally got my hands on Anima and i was planning to make a Psychic/Ki character. So the question here now is. Do i need to take the advantage "Access to One Psychic Discipline" to gain the option to affiliate myself to a dicipline.

Here is the iffy part, under the PP section "Affinity with a psychic discipline". It states that players need to spend PP permanently invest 1 PP to gain affinity. No other prerequisites are stated, and an example is even given that a player can affiliate him/her-self to all discipline if they but spend their PPs.

In chapter 13, there is a paragraph about opening psychic disciplines (I can't give you the page, I have a Frech book; but I think it's the one you are talking about).
It says there that you can get an affinity only once if you only have "access to one psychic discipline"; and that you are, not limited if you have "access to all psychic disciplines"

 

I found it quite perplexing that, in the book itself. Such requirements are not stated clearly and concisely. Even under the magic section, The Gift was only touched on fluff wise with implications that one must have the gift before using magic. It would be nice if it was stated clearly like "Players are required to pick the advantage, The Gift before they are allowed access to their magical abilities".

well, there IS such a sentence. Check the last two sentences of the paragraph "the Gift", in chapter 11   ("A sorcerer must take the Gift. It is not included in his class")

 

It is stated under the magic/psychic advantages, that one must first have taken The Gift and an advantage that grants access to psychic before they can obtain their magic/psychic advantages.

It IS stated under magic advantages that you need the Gift to be able to obtain them. It is also stated under magic disadvantages that the creation points you get from magic disadvantages can only be used for magic advantages.
Same with acces to psychic disciplines and psychic advantages/disadvantages

[Elydis 0]

Well, im assuming you are using the french book. Unfortunately im using the english version of the book, and i must say, the translator did a horrid job. Which explains the discrepeny, i did some research on other forums so yes you are correct.

It is just annoying when the english version is so poorly written.

Tks anyway for clearing that up =D

[Moklo 0]

Elydis said:

Which explains the discrepeny, i did some research on other forums so yes you are correct.

Remember this: Exarkfr is ALWAYS correct. No need to check elsewhere. He IS the truth, the "Living Corebooook" !!!!!

[harleysa 0]

I actually think that the translation isn't too bad its just a few of the more technical parts that get a bit touchy which, frankly, is one of the perils of translating technical writing. Given all the problems in getting it out at all Im willing to cut the translator a bit of slack, hopefully these issues will improve over time.

[ArmySyko 0]

As I'm reading and putting things together, the wording doesn't seem to be too terrible.  I'm continuing to work my way through it but have to double back every now and then.  It's nothing too severe.  I'll get it figured out.

The truth is that a really new system has all sorts of terminology and intricate pieces that have to be worked through.  That's the stage I'm going to be with this one until after the holidays.

A-S