I'm playing a class that has cantrips. But when I start it none of the them are set on my quick access bar or whatever it's called. And the game doesn't really tell you how to do it. I mean it's not too hard to figure out but still. Why not have them already set?
Also I'm not well versed in Pathfinder but it seems like they expect you to be? Like all the different classes and sub classes can be daunting. For me at least
And when I rest one of the things you watch out for is something like decreasing corruption or something like that. The first one. Not sure what they're getting at.
Not at all an expert on Pathfinder but I do know 3.5
3.5 just hates casters. Even with everything the game did to buff casters (sooo many options) the 3.5 base of the rules make single class mages the weakest class in the game.
Unlike 5th ed, cantrips soon become useless you have a magus or a multiclass because you need to roll to hit and with enemy AC and you never will. You are better off giving your mage a crossbow and better still using the mage as a buffer.
Again, not an expert on the lore but from what I've gathered from the game: A scientist / mage opened a portal to the abyss called the worldwound. That bleeding from that wound corrupts everything. Think: radiation. (it looks like pathfinder borrowed some stuff from Gamma World) You need to get some place with a holy shrine set up to to undo the radiation.
Essentially you have three sleep cycles before you start suffering unless you have high religion score and you put that person in charge of running religious rituals before sleep. Then you might get 4 sleep cycles.
I have to disagree about 3.5e "hating" casters. What it was is that in 2e casters were super-powerful and by comparison fighters, especially melee warriors, were extremely weak. The ridiculous extent to which wizards dominate in BG2 is an excellent example of this. Therefore, in 3.5e, there was a conscious effort to bring things more into balance between wizards and fighters, so wizards dropped in power and fighters became stronger. So without this comparative context, it is not fair to judge "weakened" wizards in 3.5e in some absolute sense.
I for one am extremely happy they did this, because I love playing melee classes and hate playing casters. So I always hated 2e for this reason that it heavily favored wizards over warriors, and love that in 3.5e fighters (and melee classes generally) have more to contribute.
