Refinement and Specialization

[Bango Shank]

I'm having a bit of confusion about this particular topic and was hoping someone could clear this up.

Refinement gives Specialization bonuses that must be structured in the same manner as skills. On YS249 it says (in bold no less) that Specialization bonuses do not stack.

Here's the question:
Does this mean that you can not take a refinement and gain a bonus in something you already have a specialization for? as they wouldn't stack and thus would be useless. Such as if you already have a +1 power specialization from the free evocation focus and then try to add +1 power and +1 control to the same element, would you end up with just +1 power and +1 control because the power bonuses don't stack?

If it's the case that they don't stack like that, would you then have to take another refinement to get +2 power, which would trump the +1 power already established and would be used instead? If so, how do you get more than +2 bonus on anything given that refinement can only give you 2 +1s and you can't stack them on top of any existing specializations?

[MijRai]

I'm having a bit of confusion about this particular topic and was hoping someone could clear this up.

Refinement gives Specialization bonuses that must be structured in the same manner as skills. On YS249 it says (in bold no less) that Specialization bonuses do not stack.

Here's the question:
Does this mean that you can not take a refinement and gain a bonus in something you already have a specialization for? as they wouldn't stack and thus would be useless. Such as if you already have a +1 power specialization from the free evocation focus and then try to add +1 power and +1 control to the same element, would you end up with just +1 power and +1 control because the power bonuses don't stack?

If it's the case that they don't stack like that, would you then have to take another refinement to get +2 power, which would trump the +1 power already established and would be used instead? If so, how do you get more than +2 bonus on anything given that refinement can only give you 2 +1s and you can't stack them on top of any existing specializations?

You can stack them. You can't use more then one at a time though. Say you have a lot of refinement, and end up with specialization like this:
Control +1 Spirit, +2 Fire, +3 Earth
Power +1 Spirit, +2 Fire, +3 Earth
You have to have a one, in order to have a two. And a two in order to have a three, etc.
Now, say you have a volcano spell. You could use earth or fire for it, right? Well, you have to choose. You can't use both the Fire and Earth power/control, you can use either the Fire OR the Earth. You can't stack two different kinds of specialization in a spell. That doesn't include foci, which stack on top of specialization.
I learned this the hard way, when I had a air/water wizard who would make a thunderstorm as a manuever. I tried to add both specialization, which isn't allowed. It keeps all of those specialization from being spent in the same spell.

Here is what it has to look like, in the manner of skill stacking.
+3 O
+2 O  O
+1 O  O  O
Fire, Earth, Spirit Power

[JosephKell]

Think of it as a "Specialization Point Pool" (like how you have a skill point pool) that must structure like you do skills.  However, you have an "Evocation Specialization Point Pool" and a "Thaumaturgy Specialization Point Pool" that are kept separate.

But you can definitely upgrade existing specializations, you just have to maintain your columns.

[Becq]

As above, but noting that there need not be a seperate column for power and control.  All of the specializations for a given magical ability (Evocation for example, or Channeling for another) pool together for this.  So, for example, you could have +3 spirit control, +2 spirit power, and +1 air control as a column (which would be 2.5 Refinements, so you'd either have another +1 bonus, perhaps to air power or earth control, or you might choose a focus slot for the leftover half of a Refinement).  You can have multiple columns for a given ability, so long as each column is legal, and the height of each column is limited by your Lore.  (Oh, and your Template may limit your total number of Refinements.  For example, Wizards have no limit, but Sorcerers can only refine each magical ability once.)

[Bango Shank]

Ah, thank you all for the clarification. Glad to know I wasn't doing it too far off base, means less rewriting work on my part.

An unrelated question:
Can you use Evocation to create a spell that is both an Attack and a Maneuver? From what I gather due to evocation's somewhat simple nature the answer is a no, but I'm not seeing anything that explicitly states that it isn't possible.

[Belial666]

Yes, you can. Use the Orbius spell as a template. It grapples the target, holding them immobile, and slowly strangles them to death (dealing physical stress over time)

[Becq]

Yes, you can. Use the Orbius spell as a template. It grapples the target, holding them immobile, and slowly strangles them to death (dealing physical stress over time)

I'm not sure that's a good example.  That spell is simply a grapple, and grapples can inflict stress over time already.

It seems to me that the official answer is 'no'.  YS250 says step 2 of spellcasting is "Describe the effect in terms of one of the following basic conflict actions: attack, block, maneuver, or counterspell."  That said, I think it would be well within the spirit of the rules to allow the caster to divide the shifts of the spell between an attack component and a maneuver component.  So you might have a 5 shift attact spell that, if successful, inflicts a W:2 attack with 1 shift and allocates 3 shifts (more if the target has a higher defense) to a maneuver.  A good example of this might be a force spell that thwacks the target and knocks them to the ground (imposing a fragile "Knocked to the ground" aspect on the target).

As a house rule, this would need to have some buy-in by the GM and/or the group as a whole.  And while I don't think this would be overpowered (The straight W:5 attack would be more likely to inflict a more severe and more permanent aspect by way of a consequence), if it proves to be too powerfull in play, you could modify it to require a 'split' attack, with control roll successes split for purposes of overcoming defenses.  I think this would be rather weak, however.