Refinement Question

[rientelfon]

Hey everyone,

First "real" question I have regarding the Dresden File RPG system, which I am digging by the way!

Let's say you have a wizard with the following build:
Evocation - Elements (Fire, Water, Spirit) - Specialization: Power (Water +1)

Later, the wizard takes a Refinement and chooses the Specialization Bonus for Evocation and has the following:
Specialization: Power (Fire +1, Water +1) Control (Water +1)

Later, that same wizard takes another Refinement and chooses the Specialization Bonus for Evocation again and has the following:
Specialization: Power (Fire +2, Water +1) Control (Fire +2, Water +1)

Later, that same wizard takes another Refinement and chooses the Specialization Bonus for Evocation again and has the following:
Specialization: Power (Spirit +3, Fire +2, Water +1) Control (Spirit +3, Fire +2, Water +1)

Are these valid?

Thanks in advance! 

[Cadd]

Not quite

Let's say you have a wizard with the following build:
Evocation - Elements (Fire, Water, Spirit) - Specialization: Power (Water +1)

Later, the wizard takes a Refinement and chooses the Specialization Bonus for Evocation and has the following:
Specialization: Power (Fire +1, Water +1) Control (Water +1)

So far, so good. The Refinement adds 2 specialization "points". You've spent them to go from 0 to 1 each in Fire Power and Water Control.

Later, that same wizard takes another Refinement and chooses the Specialization Bonus for Evocation again and has the following:
Specialization: Power (Fire +2, Water +1) Control (Fire +2, Water +1)

Here you've run away a bit and added 3: one to Fire Power (up from 1), and two to Fire Control (up from 0)

Later, that same wizard takes another Refinement and chooses the Specialization Bonus for Evocation again and has the following:
Specialization: Power (Spirit +3, Fire +2, Water +1) Control (Spirit +3, Fire +2, Water +1)

And in this step you've added another 6: up from 0 to 3 each in both Power and Control for Spirit.

[rientelfon]

Hey Cadd,

Ok, I thought that was the case. Thanks for clarifying.

Thanks