u/Teridax68

Focus spells are a great innovation in Pathfinder 2e, giving casters powerful spells they can throw out every encounter without dipping into their daily spell slots. In some cases, they are so good that they define the experience of playing a caster class, as with the Bard's compositions or several of the Druid's order spells. In other cases, they don't work so well, and this discussion tries to dig a bit deeper into why.

The basic gist of it is that there are two broad types of focus spell: those that complement your slot spells, and those that substitute for your slot spells. These two kinds of focus spells in my opinion scale a bit differently from one another, and work better with some types of caster than others.

---

Basic Assumptions

Before going into more detail, here are the basic assumptions I'm making that I think are relevant when discussing focus spells:

1. The "typical" slot spell takes two, sometimes three actions to cast. There are of course exceptions to this where spells can be cast as single actions or reactions, but those spells are generally more situational than the usual two-action button you can press to do your main thing on your turn.
2. Higher-rank spells scale more than linearly. By this, I mean that a higher-rank spell will usually, though not always be stronger than a lower-rank spell heightened to that same rank. Compare, for instance, a 9th-rank fireball spell to falling stars, which deals more damage, covers a larger area, and can deal damage of different types. Other higher-rank spells may instead do completely new things that aren't allowed at lower rank, such as quandary taking an enemy out of combat with no save.
3. Focus spells are typically weaker than slot spells. As with the above, exceptions very much do exist, as with the Bard's compositions or Animist's vessel spells, but generally, focus spells tend to be a bit weaker than slot spells pound-for-pound. When a focus spell approaches or matches the power level of a slot spell, as with the Druid's tempest surge compared to thunderstrike, that tends to be a notable strength.

With these assumptions set, let's talk focus spells.

---

Complementary Focus Spells

In my opinion, a focus spell is complementary to slot spells when it can be cast alongside most slot spells: if the typical slot spell takes two actions to cast, then a complementary focus spell will generally require just one action, sometimes a reaction or even a free action. This I think has a subtle impact on the caster that has this kind of spell:

• Because this kind of focus spell doesn't get in the way of your main spellcasting, it doesn't necessarily compete with slot spells, and so tends to stay relevant for longer. A Bard will always have a good reason to use their courageous anthem in battle even at a high level.
• Because this kind of focus spell tends to work alongside slot spells, it means you're going to be more likely to dip into your slot spells at all levels, including at early levels where they're in short supply.

Put together, this tends to mean that complementary focus spells tend to scale quite well as a caster levels up, but also can't be fully depended on to cover a whole turn. At early levels, this means a caster with this kind of spell generally has to rely on other features to feel strong, such as more spell slots, strong stats, or other features that are strong at that level.

---

Substitute Focus Spells

Substitute focus spells I think are pretty straightforward: they take two or three actions to cast, just like your typical slot spell, and so you have to choose between either one or the other on your turn. The implications, however, I think are a bit more complex:

• Because this kind of focus spell replaces the use of a typical slot spell on a turn, casting it will save you a spell slot, making you less dependent on daily resources.
• Because higher-rank slot spells tend to scale better than lower-rank spells heightened to that rank, this kind of focus spell tends to become less comparatively strong as you level up. This doesn't always mean the focus spell becomes irrelevant, and in fact many such focus spells are still useful to have around at high level, but it doesn't necessarily carry quite the same edge as when you first gained it.

Thus, substitute focus spells I think tend to work the opposite to complementary focus spells, offering their best benefits early on when they're obtained, and falling off over time. They're very good at helping out casters who have limited spell slots or start off weak in other respects, though unless the caster keeps gaining more of these spells at higher levels, they're going to need other features to keep them from falling off themselves.

---

When It Works

With just a small difference in actions required, focus spells can therefore scale very differently from one another, powering up casters in very different ways at very different levels. Complementary focus spells with lower action costs can help casters scale into later levels, whereas substitute focus spells are especially good at boosting casters at the levels when they're gained. In general, I think this has been used really well to make certain casters shine:

• Bards are amazing group buffers and debuffers thanks to their compositions. At early levels, they get to do other things well besides cast slot spells or cantrips thanks to their martial weapon proficiency and plentiful trained skills. As they specialize more over time, their compositions remain just as relevant, allowing them to keep giving their party an advantage while still having the actions to throw out other powerful spells.
• Cloistered Clerics get to feel like they have spells for days thanks to their domain spells at low level. By the time those domain spells become less relevant, the class's core spellcasting and divine font mean they no longer have to rely as much on resourceless spellcasting to consistently have powerful turns.
• Sorcerers have this really fun scaling where initially, a lot of their strength comes from their various power-ups, with their single-action bloodline spells serving mostly as a vehicle for their blood magic. As they level up, however, those spells become all the more relevant, letting them do several things at once on their turn as they dip into their many slot spells, and letting them activate blood magic even as they decide to use one of their many spells that isn't granted by their bloodline. Having that single-action spell becomes really liberating and lets the class easily leverage their core features well into high levels.

In all of these cases, the type of focus spell is well-adapted to the class, being most relevant when it needs to be, with the class having other features to help them out when those focus spells aren't at their strongest (though arguably, the Bard's compositions are so powerful that they're really strong at all levels). When a caster's class features and their focus spells are in sync, the end result is a class that tends to feel consistently good to play.

---

When It Doesn't

The flipside to the above is that different types of focus spells tend to come with different expectations: complementary focus spells are best at helping casters scale into late levels, but need to be supported by other strong features at early levels when casters have the fewest spell slots in their career. Substitute focus spells are great at helping casters at early levels when they most benefit from alternatives to spell slots, but can't single-handedly maintain that edge at higher levels as they fall off. This means things can go wrong when these considerations aren't taken into account, and I think this has happened at least twice:

• The Druid starts off really strong in no small part due to their (usually) powerful substitute focus spells, coupled with strong base stats thanks to their proficiencies and key attribute. Past level 15, though, those base stats equalize with those of other casters, and their focus spells end up falling off too. Coupled with a primal tradition that doesn't offer as many "broken" spells at high ranks compared to the other spell lists, the end result is a class that doesn't have as much to offer from its core features at high level than at the start.
• The Wizard, by contrast, has some class features that become incredibly powerful at higher levels, giving the class plenty of high-rank arcane spells to throw around and a lot of overall versatility. They even get to leverage pretty decent use out of their single-action school spells on certain occasions, like finishing off an enemy low on HP with a force bolt while using the rest of their turn to cast another spell. Trouble is, none of that really comes online at levels 1-4, where the Wizard largely feels like a weak caster with really inflexible spell preparation and piddly focus spells.

In short, the Druid needs a boost at higher levels that their focus spells just don't provide, whereas the Wizard's focus spells really don't help them out at the point where they need them the most. In the Druid's case, I'd argue that their focus spells are fine and the problem lies with a lack of distinct features at that level, but in the Wizard's case I think they were just given the wrong kind of focus spell.

---

Conclusion

If you just want a few key takeaways from the above wall of text, the TL;DR is as follows:

• There are essentially two types of focus spell: either the focus spell complements your slot spells by costing very few actions and being castable alongside most spells, or the focus spell substitutes for your slot spells by replacing them on your turn with their higher action cost.
• Complementary focus spells tend to scale better into higher levels, and usually (but not always) contribute the least at early levels when casters have the least amount of spell slots.
• Substitute focus spells tend to be especially good at lower levels when they can ease a caster's dependence on spell slots, but tend to fall off as they're outscaled by higher-rank slot spells.
• The type of focus spell a class gets is important, because it shapes their initial power and scaling, and thus needs to work in sync with other features. When done right, you get classes like the Bard and the Sorcerer, who feel consistently strong. When done wrong, you get classes with really lopsided scaling like the Druid or the Wizard, who might feel strong at certain levels but not so great at others.

None of this is necessarily going to change the way you play, and if you're the kind of player who still regularly casts that two-action focus spell you got ten levels ago, the above likely won't, and more importantly shouldn't convince you to play differently if you're having fun. Rather, I like talking about design like this because I'm a game design nerd, and hopefully this will also be of interest to others too. I also think doing a deeper dive on certain design topics can help better articulate the issues players might have around certain classes, like the Druid or the Wizard in this case. I hope you enjoyed!

I like to think about game design, and since I started playing Pathfinder 2e and getting to grips with its very well-defined structure, one of the questions in my mind has always been: "if a class were bang in the middle between martial and caster, how many spell slots per rank would it have?". For this thought experiment, the hypothetical class would have no unique features, just the statistical progression you'd expect from a standard martial class, and as much of a caster progression as would be allowed with their remaining power budget: in other words, never a class you'd actually see released, because that kind of flat design would obviously be very dull, but interesting to think about for design and balancing purposes, as I think it helps think about how much you can add to a class if you take out a layer of spell slots, or how much you'd have to remove if you were to add another layer on top.

---

Premaster

Prior to the remaster, and up until relatively recently, my answer would be: this hypothetical pure hybrid class would have two spell slots per rank. This was based on a few points of reference:

• Just a notch below this benchmark, you had bounded casters like the Magus and Summoner: although these classes have a different number of spell slots from other casters, I'd argue bounded casting is about equivalent to 1-slot casting, with extra top-rank slots instead of the lower-rank slots you'd see in other casters. Using Spell Blending as a reference for how spell ranks are valued relative to each other, if you were to explode one spell slot per rank into two spell slots of its rank-2, and repeated the process downward, bounded casters would end up with a bit more than 1 spell slot per rank, with no 10th-rank slot at level 19. This amount of spell output was enough to give those classes martial-grade base statistics, but also really strong features like Spellstrike or Act Together. One notch below that, and you have full martials with an even stronger total package of features.
• One notch above this benchmark, you had effectively the standard for spellcasters, e.g. your Bards, Clerics, and Druids. In each case, these 3-slot casters lacked the stat progression of full martial classes, but had room for solid features such as compositions, a Charisma-based divine font, and in the Druid's case solid stats with the strongest focus spells in the game. If you wanted to sort of be a martial class and keep your spell slots and features, as with the Warpriest, you had to sacrifice some of your spellcasting proficiency while still not being able to reach the same heights of Strike accuracy or AC as martial classes.
• Two notches above sat the upper limit of spellcasting, i.e. your Sorcerers and Wizards. Getting 4 spell slots per rank meant these classes not only paid with the weakest base stats in the game, but also uniquely had features that worked as limiters to their spellcasting breadth: the Sorcerer's bloodline-specific spells take up your repertoire, while the Wizard's fourth slot was limited to spells of their school.

Adjacent to all this was the Psychic, who had the 2-slot casting of this theoretical benchmark class, but sacrificed base statistics in its power budget for Unleash Psyche and exceptional use of Focus Points. All of this solidified the idea to me that if you wanted to have more than 2 spell slots per rank as a caster, you had to give up a pretty substantial amount of base stat progression relative to martial classes, and if you wanted the absolute maximum of 4 spell slots per rank, not even the worst base stats in the game would be enough to stop you from getting added limitations put in place.

---

Remaster

Since the remaster, however, the above benchmark has shifted: many more classes have released or been remastered with 4-slot casting and strong features, including in Starfinder 2e with the Mystic and Witchwarper classes, while many existing casters received significant buffs to their features, whether it was the Cleric getting a better divine font, the Sorcerer getting sorcerous potency, or casters in general getting better focus spells and better Refocusing. This made me question the standard I'd set for caster balance thus far and made me ask: what would this benchmark look like now?

With the upcoming release of Impossible Magic, I think the answer's become clearer: bounded casting is gone, and current bounded caster classes are getting 2-slot casting instead (Credit to Mathfinder/AAABattery03 for the video!). Effectively, getting 2 spell slots per rank leaves enough power budget in the remaster to also get strong features on top of martial-grade statistics. Meanwhile, the Warpriest gets master Strikes: were one to remove the class's improved divine font in order to give them master AC, earlier master Strikes, and possibly even the legendary spell accuracy of a Cloistered Cleric, the end result would be our hypothetical benchmark class as a 3-slot spellcaster. Thus, the benchmark for caster balance overall, and what a caster can be expected to have for the spell slots that they have, appears to have been brought up by one layer of spell slots in the remaster.

---

The Ones Left Behind

Although one could call this change power creep (which, technically speaking, it is), and while I think some casters have have gotten a bit too much, I also personally feel most classes have come out of this pretty well: the Sorcerer and Cleric I think have come out really positively from their buffs, for instance, whereas the Bard has always had strong enough composition spells to still be a great class post-remaster, despite not getting more spell slots or majorly improved features. Although it's still a little early, the Magus at the very least looks to have much better access to utility with their increased spell slots, and I get the feeling the Summoner is going to have much more to play with as well.

With all of the above said, though, I do think there are a few classes that didn't come out so well, because they weren't really brought in line with this new standard of balance:

• The Druid (At High Level): At lower levels, I would say the Druid is still a powerhouse. They effectively do play like that hypothetical benchmark class if they were a primal caster, trading off a bit of Hit Points and saving throw proficiency (up until level 3) for excellent focus spells. Post-level 15, though, they end up with the same AC and save modifiers as any other caster class, and although their focus spells do scale better than most others, slot spells still scale better eventually. Effectively, they end up turning into a 3-slot caster without any of the strong features or equivalent statistics to keep them on par, which I suspect has played a part in players becoming less satisfied with the class.
• The Psychic: The poor Psychic really can't catch a break. Plenty has been said about the class already, and I've written another entire essay about how the remaster did the Psychic dirty, but I think the upcoming Magus (and, presumably, Summoner) remasters really put the class to shame. All three classes have the same number of spell slots, yet the Psychic I'd argue is far behind on both base statistics and class features.
• The Wizard: Of the two original 4-slot casters, the Wizard really got the short end of the stick. Whereas the Sorcerer got a better Dangerous Sorcery for free and much better focus spells, the Wizard got their fourth spell slot per rank limited to a much smaller fixed curriculum of spells. In a remaster that bumped up the benchmark for casters, the Wizard thus has the dubious honor of being the only class to arguably get nerfed in the transition.

Although these classes didn't necessarily change much, the landscape around them did: because casters are now stronger, and are thus expected to be stronger, the ones that didn't get brought up to that standard have now become weaker in comparison.

---

Conclusion

To sum up the above in a few TL;DR bulletpoints:

• Prior to the remaster, the benchmark for a hypothetical pure martial-caster hybrid class (with no interesting class features) involved making them a 2-slot caster. If you wanted fun features or spell slots, that meant taking away a good chunk of those stats, and if your class had fewer spell slots, that could afford you some really nifty class features.
• Post-remaster, the benchmark I think has shifted to make this hypothetical middle class a 3-slot caster. 4-slot casters still get to have good stats or class features, hybrid classes like the Magus or Summoner get to have 2-slot casting while also having solid base stats and class features, and in-between builds like the Warpriest get to sort of dance around the benchmark by sacrificing a bit of progression in some fields to keep class features elsewhere, all while keeping their 3-slot casting.
• Not every caster class was brought up to this benchmark, though, chiefly the Druid, Psychic, and Wizard. For this reason, it shouldn't be too surprising that they've earned a reputation for being the weakest casters in the current roster.

And that's about enough rambling from me. Hopefully this will have been of interest to others too!