That helps, but doesn't take much to push someone in a specific direction. Suppose I have +1 bind power, +1 bind control, +1 interference power, and a focus giving 3 shifts of persistence to binds and interference. Or +1 attack power, +1 attack control, +1 veil control, and a focus giving +1 control and a free zone effect on my attacks and veils. That's enough to make me reluctant to deviate from the plan.

I can argue that for 1/3rd the cost of that +3 persistence focus, you could get a +2 persistence shield focus if it's tied to a single rote. I could say that perhaps foci should be tied to three categories, and not two. However, if those incentives are really so extreme that a +1 in only 2 categories is enough to convince you to never use anything else, I'd say specializations simply shouldn't exist at all.

The way I see it, either specializations need to be like Stunts, in that they make you better in some situations over others, or they need to be removed as a bad game mechanic that does nothing but inflate player power and compromise the skill cap and the skill pyramid systems.

But honestly, I'm not so sure that your example is necessarily so extreme as you make it out to be. In fact, isn't it kind of true to canon? Harry has a relatively predictable game plan he tries to follow. Blast the bad guys, unnerve them with banter, and block anything they throw at him. Molly has a relatively predictable game plan she tries to follow. Hide with a veil, and fool them into giving up or beating one another. Nevertheless they're sometimes placed in situations where going outside their specialties is still the best option. Like when Harry uses Veils. Maybe it encourages you to come up with some reliable tactics and use them most of the time, but does it really restrict you to the point that going off-specialty is completely impractical?

That doesn't mean anything mechanically, though. A block is a block regardless.

I explain it under the description for Shields. With a mono-directional shield, your opponents can maneuver or assess to take advantage of the opening, or Block you from using your shield against a certain attacker.

In canon, you can use one focus for control and one for power. Taran's trying to address that, I think. But personally I prefer your one-focus-per-spell approach.

You're right. I didn't notice that. The problem with one focus per spell though, is it forces you to take only one focus, which is less interesting.

I suppose you could instead cap focus slots by category, but allow any number of foci to stack. So no more than <Lore> focus slots dedicated to offense, and <Lore> focus slots to defense, but you can use all applicable foci at any given time.

I dunno.. that's getting complicated.

Right now the Specialization system, and to a lesser extent, the Focus system, present players with non-choices. The game is designed such that each element can accomplish pretty much any effect with equal capacity. This completely defeats the point of specializing in one element or another, except for aesthetic purposes. Why does it matter if I can attack with Fire when I can already attack with Air? If I ever run into the rare enemy who's somehow immune to Air evocations, but not Fire, then there's still no reason to specialize in Fire. Rather than spend a point of Refinement on Fire magic, I can simply keep a point or two of refresh unspent and use the Fate Points. Those Fate Points can be used every session, unlike a Fire specialization which I might need a handful of times, if ever. It also means that, apart for the special case of Veils, which are exclusive to spirit, players should focus completely on specializing in a single evocation element to the exclusion of all others, which is boring and not true to the books.

This also causes issues when interacting with NPCs statted by Evil Hat. Evil Hat designs Wizards with specializations and foci in all sorts of different areas, even if those choices are strictly inferior. A player who invests their refinements properly, therefore, stands head and shoulders above the NPCs, making those NPC stats useless to the GM.

This difference in power level between what was expected and what is possible also upsets the balance between Wizards and Mortals. Wizards can get so many shifts, that it's impossible to defend against a spell unless you're also a wizard. Evil Hat expects a "capable" Chest-Deep Wizard to reliably manage 3 or 4 shifts of power. A competent player, however, can comfortably reach upwards of seven or eight shifts, and more with extra effort. While 3 or 4 shifts is certainly within mortal capacity to deal with, seven or eight is much, much, harder, and that's only the beginning. This tosses even beginner Wizards so high above mortals that they're impossible to resist. It turns the game into "rocket tag" where the first Wizard to take his turn incinerates the enemy with overwhelming force.

The fundamental root of the problem is that the book doesn't follow its own recommendations. For context, stunts are supposed to apply a +2 to a particular use of a single trapping. In this case, the book is treating Refinement like a stunt, and elements as though they were trappings. The simple answer is that unless you're willing to define what each element can and cannot do, the elements simply are not trappings. Any element can do anything. (Except Spirit, which just makes Spirit the best element, and that's boring.) The real trappings of the spellcasting system are ACTIONS like Attack or Maneuver. These are the things you should be specializing in.

MY GOAL WITH THE FOLLOWING SYSTEM is that a wizard's stats be difficult to increase across the board for all categories. Wizards should have to make meaningful choices on what to specialize in and what not to. Generally, this will make wizards weaker on average, compared to mono-element wizards in the standard system. However, many things which used to depend on power, such as Duration, or Area of Effect, will be easier to use. In this way, wizards will have spells with lower Power, but much easier access to supplementary effects.  Hopefully, this will incentivize players to build their characters more like the wizards in the rule book, who have their specializations split wider in a variety of categories.

To this end I propose the following system:

FOCI:
Foci are no longer tied to "offense" or "defense". Instead, they're tied to TWO of the following categories:

Evocation Action Categories:
* Attack
* Maneuver
* Shield (Defensive Block vs Attacks)
* Bind (Offensive Block, 1 target, all actions)
* Interference (Offensive Block, any target(s), one action)
* Veil (Defensive Block vs Perception, or Illusion-based Maneuver)
* Counterspell

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a proof-of-concept for how each option should have a limited scope of applications, kind of like how Thaumaturgy specializations already work.

Rather than choosing categories, you may choose to design a Focus exclusively for a specific Rote. If so, it gains one additional Focus Slot's worth of effect at no additional cost.

Foci no longer grant power and control bonuses in the way they used to. Instead they give effects from the following list.

* 1 Focus Slot: +1 exchange of persistence
* 1 Focus Slot: The focus's effects apply to one additional Evocation action category
* 2 Focus Slot (Shields): Shields are omni-directional
* 2 Focus Slots (Veils): Veils do not penalize perception rolls of those within them
* 2 Focus Slots: +1 to Control
* 2 Focus Slots: Spells may cover a whole zone (or an additional zone)

Only one Focus may be used for any given spell.

An Evocation Focus is limited in the number of Focus Slots it can hold. A single Focus can have a number of Focus Slots up to your Lore skill value. If you want more slots in the same focus, each slot in excess of your Lore skill value costs two slots.

For example, if your Lore skill is 3, you can create a Focus with +1 exchanges of persistence (1 slot) that can cover a whole zone (2 slots). This costs 3 Focus slots total.  If you want to add an additional +1 Control (2 slots) to your focus, that would exceed your Lore of 3. This means the cost of that +1 Control is doubled to 4 slots, giving your focus a total cost of 7 focus slots.

If your Lore skill increases, some of your foci may become cheaper, freeing up focus slots.

SPECIALIZATIONS:
Evocation specializations no longer apply to elements. Instead, they're bound to one of the Evocation Actions.

In addition, when structuring your specializations according to the "column" system, don't count power and control as separate categories. Instead, just count up the number of specializations in each Evocation Action, irrespective of whether those specialization bonuses are for power or control.
For example, if a character had +2 Power and +1 Control for Attack spells, that would add up to 3 specializations total in Attack. He would also need 2 specializations in a second action, and 1 specialization in a third action in order to balance the column.

EVOCATION ACTIONS:

Attack:
When you roll to control the spell, shifts in excess of the target's defense roll are converted to damage at a rate of 2 to 1.

When you cast an attack evocation that affects a whole zone, you halve your spell's weapon rating (rounded up).

Maneuver:
Maneuvers are unchanged from YS.

Blocks:
Blocks are divided into multiple categories: Shield, Bind, Interference, and Veil.

Shield:
Shield spells are a block which prevents attacks. They function as in YS except that they are mono-directional by default. Opponents may Maneuver to take advantage of this opening, or use Blocks to prevent you from using your shield against a certain attacker. For 2 shifts of power, you may make an omni-directional shield.

Bind:
Bind spells are a block which prevents a single target from taking most (or all) actions, such as a spell which ties up the target using invisible cords of force, or which causes the earth to rise up and swallow the target, or that puts its target to sleep.

Interference:
Interference spells are a block which prevents a specific action (other than attack) from multiple targets. For example, a strong wind blowing out a door to increase the zone barrier; a heavy mist that prevents fires from starting; a roaring fire enveloping the pile of guns so that no one can grab them.

Veil:
Veils are spells which Block perception. Veils can also use illusions to take Maneuvers. Veils are otherwise unchanged from YS. Remember that Veils penalize the perception rolls of those within them by the same amount, unless you spend 2 shifts to make the veil transparent from within.

Counterspell:
Counterspells are unchanged from YS.

Great write up, but I have a comment and a (semi-rhetorical) question in response:

- First, if I had to guess, the whole "decay" being linked to Water came not from Jim but Evil Hat and is just marginal writing. There isn't a whit of this in the books or the short stories I've read as far as I can recall. My guess is it got messed up with Winter's domain over decay, where you also have some capability with Water.

They're referring to Ramirez's water shield, which was based around entropy. At the time of publication, it was the only example of Water magic. I included a quote from Jim B. about it in the OP.

I actually suspect the Fairy Courts might match this model of the elements as well. Water dissolves form, but never destroys utterly. Remember when Mother Winter said the same thing to Harry?

- Second, can not the interpretation of classical elements change over time, and in fact has it already not? And if so, doesn't that mean what an element is capable of shifts over time as the population understands it differently? (Obviously when dealing with long-lived wizards passing down their knowledge, the information won't be as easily corrupted, but it still will happen.)

Yes that's a possibility, but I haven't seen this in the novels. For example, Harry uses his understanding of Fire magic to appraise the personality of another fire practitioner based on their approach to Fire magic. He also makes some comments on what frame of mind is needed to use Fire. If the elements were that dependent on personal interpretation, this would be impossible. There would be plenty of people with completely contradictory interpretations of the elements.

I figure there must be enough structure to the classical elements system that subjective differences in understanding are relatively minor.

I don't think it was ever about information. Laws of magic change (as hinted by Bob once), so if the ideas tied to traditional elements changed, or were merged with those from other cultures (we do have to account for that), some defining qualities may well have changed. Magic isn't operating by hard and fast rules, so why should we account only for a singular interpretation of a [thing]? Still, I really like the write-up, I might even try to use it for my Mage in another system, in some capacity.

That's a possibility. Maybe the system itself is subject to the collective belief of humanity (or the collective belief of Wizards), but is not particularly beholden to individual interpretation.

That would make it subjective, while still being rigid enough that different practitioners still have a common frame of reference.

Earth is associated with Dryness and Coolness. Dryness is a rigid structure. Inflexible, unchanging, and unreceptive, but reliable and having a strong sense of identity and purpose. Coolness is the power to mix different things together.  With Dry and Cool together, Earth is associated with the family, home, and society. Those things which, when they remain stable, bind and bring together both households and countries. Psychologically, it represents pragmatism and realism. Donald Morgan's personality reflects his specialty in Earth magic: his unflinching belief in the authority and structure of the White Council and their Laws of Magic, as well as his willingness to set aside his ideals and perform his duty as the White Council's executioner.

If you want to read more, check out this series of articles:
https://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/AGEDE/Intro.html

I've been reading through the book and there's a few rules and things that stuck out to me as incomplete.

The novels describe magical specialization in terms of power and control, and we see the extreme of power with Harry, but we rarely see the extreme of control. The book doesn't really seem to cover what you can do with extreme control either. So what do I do for rules? For example, if I wanted to use air magic to change my clothes in a matter of seconds, or to warp my voice to mimic someone else, or make myself levitate, or to blow the dust off a house of cards without toppling it. Or using Fire magic to set something on fire without burning it.  Would this sort of thing add extra shifts to the difficulty of the spell, but not affect the mental stress cost, nor the dangerous consequences from Backlash or Fallout?

At some points, Harry spends longer periods of time casting an evocation, in order to make it stronger.  Does that count as Thaumaturgy? If so, would you still benefit from Evocation specializations/foci?

It strikes me as a bit strange that one of the main differences between channeling/ritual and evocation/thaumaturgy is your ability to take specializations. It seems like that would make Focused Practitioners worse in their area of expertise than a Wizard, which is the opposite of how the book seems to portray things.

Why can't evocations affect movement? In the novels, Harry uses a spell to make himself jump farther. Is that thaumaturgy somehow, even though there were no circles or props or anything? There's a comment in the rulebook by Harry saying that using magic to jetpack yourself forward would just cause you to smash into obstacles, but why can't you deal with that with sufficient Discipline?

There seem to be gaps in Biomancy and what the second law covers. How much can you modify a body, without completely transforming it? Can you make other people prettier? Give them a new face to hide their identity? Restore lost limbs? Change their hands into claws? Give them a second heart?