Pixel Popper's page

I think the phrasing of "Select three ikons from the list on pages 43–47," with the list being a menu of single options, indicates that the intent, at least, is clearly three different ikons.

It's like when you answer an online survey that says select three of the fifteen options that best answer the question. There's only one of, and only one check-box for, each option. You simply cannot select one option multiple times.

Or, like a used car dealership offering you a deal. There are twenty-five cars on the lot, all different makes and models, and you can choose three. It is simply not possible to choose two, or more, of the same make and model because none are duplicated.

Now, the problem with the phrasing, a la the used car lot scenario if the dealership has five units of each of the twenty-five makes and models, you may then select three units of the same make and model.

While I believe the intent is clear, the verbiage is not. Lacking any sort of "you may pick one ikon multiple times" or "you must select a different ikon each time" or, simply, "[s]elect three different ikons from the list..." language, it is ambiguous. Therefore, expect table variation.

I think I found my answer: you can't Take 20 on a Flat check because it represents chance, not skill or technique.

Flat Checks replaced percentiles. Instead of rolling percentile for, say, a 50% chance at something, Paizo leaned into d20 and created Flat Check 11 for 50%.

For skill checks, PF2E replaced taking 20 with Assurance

My poor, poor conrasu avenger of Monad, charged with destroying unnatural imbalances in the world, yet forced to use his fists to use his abilities, and therefore wholly unable to harm those abominations he seeks to destroy without first taking a -2 to attack.

Just deal non-lethal 'til the beastie is unconscious, then take the -2 when their AC is -6 (prone: -2 circumstance penalty; unconscious: -4 status penalty).

Stop feeding the troll.

AoN agrees with the physical War of Immortals book: no attack trait. I don't see anything in the errata, either.

So I don't know where Demiplane is getting that from. Right now based on the first party sources available, AoN is right and Demiplane is wrong.

Interesting bit of information! Thanks for that!

Is there some kind of community consensus how Vindicator's Mark is supposed to be adjudicated?

At present, because it involves a Spell Attack Roll, it takes MAP, but since it doesn't have the Attack trait...

I think the lack of the attack trait on the Archive's of Nethys entry is an error on AoN. The Demiplane Nexus entry shows it with the attack trait.

*(Vexing Vapor finally mentioned. ugh, that item seems like an outright print error, so I've tried to ignore it for this discussion. It's possible it was intended to have a lingering cloud impose the debuff on those inside, but forgot a mechanical sentence. Main "evidence" is the crit hit time of 1 min matches cloud linger time.)

Vexing Vapor does appear to be a misprint. While it has the Inhaled trait it does not have the affliction mechanics characteristic of alchemical poisons. It does not have a saving throw, maximum duration, and stages entries of alchemical poisons.

Dude, please. The poison trait is a multi-function trait . . .

Expanding on this. The Poison trait confusion is very similar to the problems with the Attack trait. Not all actions with the Attack trait are attacks. Some are athletics checks.

The poison trait, alone, merely indicates that an item is poisonous (adjective). For an item to be a poison (noun), it must also have one of the four method of delivery traits.

Poison Trait:

An effect with this trait delivers a poison or deals poison damage. An item with this trait is poisonous and might cause an affliction.

(Emphasis added)

Alchemical Poisons, Method of Exposure:

Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison.

.

In other words, poisons (noun) are substances that cause afflictions. If something with the poison trait does not cause an affliction, it is merely poisonous and not a poison.

. . .

/heavy sigh

In deep-diving the rules and formulating my rebuttal to prove that you are wrong and I am right, I must confess... I have discovered the reverse.

The underlying cause of the disconnect, I believe, is Paizo's unfortunate use of one word, particularly as a trait, in multiple and dissimilar ways. Sort of like the old question of whether an attack is an attack or an athletics check.

The Poison trait says, "An effect with this trait delivers a poison or deals poison damage. An item with this trait is poisonous and might cause an affliction."

The poison trait on an item simply indicates that the item is poisonous. It is the presence of a Method of Exposure trait (Contact, Ingested, Inhaled, or Injury) that defines an item as a poison.

So an item can be poisonous (adjective) without being a poison (noun). Example: Skunk Bomb. While it has the poison trait it lacks a method of exposure trait. It is not a poison; it is a poisonous bomb.

Therefore, I must agree and similarly conclude that Paizo's use of the word "poison" as a noun (singular or plural), modified or unmodified, must indeed refer to items that have a method of exposure trait. This included toxicologists' "infused poisons" thereby limiting their field benefit to alchemical items they create with Advanced or Quick Alchemy (and thus "infused") and have a method of exposure trait. In other words, the Tox. Field Benefit only applies to the items called Alchemical Poisons.

Toxicologist:

Field Benefit You can apply an injury poison you’re holding to a weapon or piece of ammunition you’re wielding as a single action, rather than as a 2-action activity. In addition, you flexibly mix acidic and poisonous alchemical compounds. Your infused poisons can affect creatures immune to poison. A creature takes acid damage instead of poison damage from your infused poisons if either the creature is immune to poison or that would be more detrimental to the creature (as determined by the GM). Typically, this benefit applies when the creature has an immunity, resistance, or weakness to one of the damage types.

Again: nothing, absolutely NOTHING says that only things with exposure are poisons.

That is correct. Not all poisons (generic category of items that behave a certain way) have an exposure trait.

However, all Alchemical Poisons (a specific subset of poisons) do have an exposure trait. The salient line in the Alchemical Poisons definition is under the "Method of Exposure" heading: "Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits..." It then lists and describes the traits: Contact, Ingested, Inhaled, and Injury.

The powerhouse in that sentence is the word, "Each." It is an exclusive term; if each item in a category has certain characteristics, then by definition, items lacking those characteristics do not belong in that category.

Ergo, if a poison lacks a trait describing the exposure method then it is not an Alchemical Poison.

Thus, items with the "Alchemical" and "Poison" traits, but lacking an exposure method, are Alchemical Items and are poisons. However, they are not Alchemical Poisons.

Pixel Popper wrote:

As our table has read Quick Alchemy, the short-lived alchemical item must be activated before the end of your turn. Poisons would also be similarly problematic unless they are permanent(ish) until used once applied.

So, in your scenario, based on our reading, it would be Quick Alchemy > Activate > Load, and next turn Shoot Ooze Ammunition.

Except that alchemical ammo deactivates it it is not fired by the dnd of the turn that it is activated.

My reflexive response was, "nuh uh! that's TBTBT!!", but I stemmed my reflexes and went looking. I had to dig for it because none of the Alchemical Ammunition traits (ooze ammo is Acid, Alchemical, and Consummable, for example) mention it. I found it under "Momentary Magic" > Activated Ammunition.

/sigh

Looks like we've been playing that wrong for a while. I suspect we'll houserule it to work as we've been playing it b/c, otherwise, it
s f'ing stupid.

Thanks for pointing that out!

As our table has read Quick Alchemy, the short-lived alchemical item must be activated before the end of your turn. Poisons would also be similarly problematic unless they are permanent(ish) until used once applied.

So, in your scenario, based on our reading, it would be Quick Alchemy > Activate > Load, and next turn Shoot Ooze Ammunition.

I am looking for a way to escape grapples as a Bard without a high acrobatics or athletics score. Does anyone have any ideas?

My game group loves the Ancestry Paragon and Gradual Ability Boost variant rules alongside Free Archetype.

Ooh! Neat! My Vanara has some new items to add to his wishlist!

I'm not concerned about High Jump or Long Jump in the slightest...

My Vanara finds Quick Jump > Long Jump to be a great method for ignoring difficult terrain :)

Pixel Popper wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Wizards get spellbooks

I react to that: If the Wizard didn't get a spellbook then it wouldn't start with any spell (as they are in their spellbook), making the class non functional at first level even if you buy a Spellbook. So it's slightly different than the Alchemist case. As a side note, the Alchemist has a Formula Book, for the same reason the Wizard has a Spellbook...

Uhm, by your own logic here, the Alchemist is not functional until he purchases his tools.

Sure, the Wizard must have his spellbook to prepare spells, but he needs nothing else. An Alchemist, however, cannot prepare his substances with formula book alone; he must have Alchemist Tools.

And by your own logic above, the alchemists tools are more equivalent to a martial character's weapons than a spellbook.

A martial character without weapons is using their fists only. But when they can get a weapon - even an improvised weapon - they become functional.

An alchemist without a toolkit cannot make bombs or elixirs. But when they can get a toolkit, they become functional.

An alchemist without their starting formula book can't create anything ever. It would be like a Fighter that is not allowed to use Strike until they pay for a license from the local constables. In addition to also needing to buy a sword.

I deleted the original while you were replying, mainly because I didn't feel that my posts added anything of positive value to the conversation.

There is the Hefty Hauler Level 1 Skill Feat and Laborer Background (which grants Hefty Hauler as a free/background feat).

There are also some Ancestry Feats (like Beast of Burden for Minotaur).

The only modifications that the Air Cartridge Firing System makes to the affixed weapon are:

I'm not aware of anything that will give Fighter or anyone else an extra reaction that can be used for Reactive Strike. ... I did just check and there is a feat - Reflexive Riposte - that gives Swashbuckler an extra reaction for Opportune Riposte.

Tactical Reflexes, available at 10th, "At the start of each of your turns when you regain your actions, you gain an additional reaction that can be used only to make a Reactive Strike." Then, at 20th, Boundless Reprisals, "At the start of each enemy’s turn, you gain a reaction you can use only during that turn for any reaction from a fighter feat or class feature."

Also, apropos, Rogues can get Preparation to exchange one action for an additional reaction for any rogue reaction like Opportune Backstab.

To clarify, I'm not saying the GM should negate the player's actions...

Sorry, you said previously, "Having a monster fail to react to Feint because they're already distracted ... That certainly implies, "and nothing else happened" (ie "your efforts did nothing because the target is already distracted").

... I'm saying the GM should make it clear through in game descriptions that applying off guard a second time doesn't really change the immediate circumstances in any way, because that is in fact the mechanics of the game.

That is not, in fact, the mechanics of the game. The AC penalty does not change, but feint and flanking are two different sources of off-guard with different conditions, requirements, durations, etcetera. If, after the feinting character's turn, the flanking buddy moves, is moved, or is dropped, off-guard from flanking is off the table. It makes sense for a feint-oriented character to try for the critical success to keep the target off-guard to his attacks the following turn even if the flanking buddy no longer provides flanking. Additionally, flanking only makes the target off-guard for the allies that qualify for flanking, not for others. If the feint-oriented character is a Scoundrel, his feint might make the flanked target off-guard for all allies not just the flanking characters.

Quote:

Furthermore, off-guard is not the only possible result of a feint. Both Goading Feint and Overextending Feint allow replacing off-guard with a penalty to the target's attack roll rather than AC (via off-guard).

Okay, but that's not the scenario the OP described, so it has nothing to do with anything here. Like, completely and utterly irrelevant.

I wasn't replying to the OP. I was replying to Errenror's response, "They are saying something like: 'The monster is already so distracted being between two enemies, expecting an attack from both directions, that your masterful feint still can't make him distracted more.' There's a difference with just 'no effect'..."

I replied with examples of feinting a flanked target that do, in fact, "make him distracted more" and then offered two class feats that show that sometimes feinting a flanked target might have a different intent then "making him more distracted."

-----------------------------

The point is that there are, in fact, legitimate reasons to feint against a flanked target. Suggesting that GMs should indicate that there's no benefit to feinting a flanked target is simply wrong. It is bad advice that is predicated only on the -2 penalty to AC for being off-guard not stacking and ignores all the other mechanics involved with feinting and flanking.

Pixel Popper wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

... Having a monster fail to react to Feint because they're already distracted might help reinforce the redundancy of these actions in a way that's more palatable than what might feel like being dictated to by another player...

I'd be really damned upset if I'm playing a Feinting character, roll a success, and my GM says, "there's no effect because the target is distracted by your flanking buddy."

But they are not saying that, no. They are saying something like: "The monster is already so distracted being between two enemies, expecting an attack from both directions, that your masterful feint still can't make him distracted more."

Sure. The instances of off-guard do not stack, but they are still different sources of off-guard with different requirements.

If that masterful feint was a Critical Success, the target is still off-guard to the feinter even when the flanking buddy moves or gets dropped (ie is no longer flanking) before the end of the feinter's next turn.

Additionally, in certain circumstances you are simply wrong.

A curious thing I noted is the dedication doesn't seem to indicate that you gain Dirty Trick as a skill feat?...

The dedication is for the Swashbuckler Multiclass Archetype and Swashbuckler Dedication says (first sentence), "Choose a swashbuckler’s style." The swashbuckler style Rascal explicitly grants training in Thievery and the Dirty Trick general feat.

So, a Dex/Cha Fighter with no training in Thievery, upon taking the Swashbuckler dedication and choosing the Rascal swashbuckler style gets trained in Thievery and gains the Dirty Trick skill feat.

... Having a monster fail to react to Feint because they're already distracted might help reinforce the redundancy of these actions in a way that's more palatable than what might feel like being dictated to by another player...

I'd be really damned upset if I'm playing a Feinting character, roll a success, and my GM says, "there's no effect because the target is distracted by your flanking buddy."

Those simply aren't the mechanics of the game. There is no facing in Pathfinder. "His back is to you, so he can't see you," isn't a thing.

Step 1: Bring a Ballista
Step 2: Create Thrall in the ballista cradle
Step 3: Fire!

Pixel Popper wrote:

Reactive Strike is simply part of the puzzle of playing a melee-centric Gunslinger (every reload in melee reach triggers), Magus, and, now, Runesmith.

I mean not really.

Reactive Strike is sufficiently rare that it's never going to be part of the overall design and balance...

I have not played any AP since the release of PF2E where Reactive Strike was not encountered at some point. And several have had creatures with multiple Reactive Strikes [Hail Hydra!].

While it may not be part of the overall design and/or balance, it is certainly a factor that has to be accounted for when playing a Your-Thing-Just-Might-Provoke class. That is "part of the puzzle."

And there are plenty of tools. They may not be explicitly built around [Reactive Strike], but that doesn't diminish their utility. Having a tanky party member intentionally provoke is a tool in the box. There are spells that prevent the target from using reactions. The Confused and Stunned conditions prevent the target from using reactions. A rogue racket has a debilitation that prevents the target from using reactions. And so on.

It is simply a fact of life for several (sub)classes that their schticks may provoke Reactive Strike. Working around that risk is, as I say, part of the puzzle of playing those classes.

/sigh

Reactive Strike is simply part of the puzzle of playing a melee-centric Gunslinger (every reload in melee reach triggers), Magus, and, now, Runesmith.

There are ways to deal with the problem. Figure them out. Rarely are these classes played in a vacuum. They have teammates. Coordinate. Delay. Let a "tank" trigger reactions. Get a caster to cast something that prevents reactions. Etceteras. The problem is hardly insurmountable.

If that's not fun for you, then either play something else or, by all means, make a house rule at your table.

... You are a necromancer, and you surrounded your enemy with thralls, now you cannot attack this enemy with your thralls because you surrounded it with them!?

There are other things in the Necromancer's kit. Thralls aren't the end-all-be-all. There are other options. And, rarely, will a Necromancer be playing solo; they'll have teammates doing things as well.

So, if/when an excess of thralls would be a problem, the simple answer is to quit making thralls and do something else. It's really not that hard.

The problem to stop creating thralls when an excess will be a problem is that you also loose your main one-action 3rd attack too.

So. Cope. Figure something else out. It's not the end of the world.

Sometimes, choices are hard. That's part of the game.

Or, maybe, I dunno... stop creating thralls when an excess will be a problem...

SuperParkourio wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

The reason it doesn't have a prerequisite is probably because this condition is per enemy. You can sneak against one enemy while fully observed by another.

There is a creature ability that does list a lack of detection as a prereq though. Aquatic Ambush requires the monster to be undetected to its target. This is a bit odd since the monster doesn't usually know if that's true, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Sneak doesn't target though.

Requirements The monster is hiding in water and a creature that hasn't detected it is within the listed number of feet;

The requirement for the ability is that the target has not detected the monster. So, to SuperParkourio's point, the monster would, indeed, need to have some kind of metagame knowledge in order to use the ability; the knowledge that it is undetected.

... There is a creature ability that does list a lack of detection as a prereq though.

Aquatic Ambush requires the monster to be undetected to its target. This is a bit odd since the monster doesn't usually know if that's true, but...

Except, the monster might know, or at least be reasonably sure. I find it fairly easy to "read" a person's body language and infer to what degree they are oblivious to my presence.

That, however, is nigh on impossible to replicate on a TTRPG battle map.

... Although I expect at least some players to lay prone on the ground and argue that they should get to use their climb speed.

That would be a non-starter with the group I play with. There is already a bespoke movement action when prone: Crawl and it moves at the same speed as the base Climb.

Asking if one can Climb instead of Crawl because they have a Climb speed is like asking if they can use Fly instead of Swim in an underwater setting because they have a Fly speed. I mean, swimming is just like flying, but underwater, right? I'm not even going to mention the converse.

[edit] ... and what SuperParkourio says

|
V

Universal dying rules are a PITA for the GM.

With the spreadsheet tool that I use to track combat, the extra effort to shift enemies in initiative order, track their dying condition, and roll their stabilize checks is nominally intrusive.

It does impact the players' decision making and tactics. It makes the cleric think twice about three-action heals, for instance.

I played a premaster Hobgoblin Gymnast Swashbuckler with Scorpion whip to 17th (when, for reasons, that campaign group collapsed). It was quite fun. (Would be even more fun remastered.)

(Alternately if you just want to roll lots of d4, Live Wire gets up to 20d4, pending nerf of course.)

... and still gets 10 of 'em on a miss.

... But i don’t think that’s part of the Search exploration action. With Search “You Seek meticulously for hidden doors, concealed hazards, and so on.” Hidden creatures simply roll their Stealrh against EVERY PC’s Perception DC, regardless of each PC’s exploration action...

Our group has rolled that into the Scout Activity. After all, that's one of the primary functions of a "scout" (to be on the look out for hostiles).

... Also, in exploration mode, arguably the enemies are using Avoid Notice, not Sneak or Hide anyway.

Perhaps it's a difference in interpretation around our table, but unless enemies are exploring they're not likely performing Exploration Activities. Sure, a roving patrol may have units in Scout, Defend, Repeat a Spell, and/or something appropriate to the task of the patrol (Search and Investigate being unlikely, for instance), or an infiltration squad might be in Avoid Notice and Follow the Leader. But, busting into a room full of dungeon guards eating dinner and playing cards, they're certainly (by our interpretation) not in "Exploration Mode."

... Don't just grapple and then go "AFK", do something with it. Trip, disarm, reposition, attack, etc.

My favorite Monk character very rarely used strikes. His main schtick was Flurry of Maneuvers (Grab + Trip) and then Whirling Throw. The ability to launch enemies out of flanking positions, off my squishier teammates, or into our front line beaters was insane.

Quote:

It's true, you're going to have a bad time if you try fitting the square peg in the round hole.

I think the bigger issue is when there is no hole that accommodates the desired peg.

Everything goes in the square hole!

... I think the short lived bomb only versatile vial

had a different name. Call it a quick bomb or something different so it is more immediately obvious it is a different thing.

They really should have had two different terms à la "Versatile Vials" (for the limited, regenerating, resource that can be made into any consumable) and Field Vials (which are utterly free but limited in scope by field discoveries).

Pixel Popper wrote:

I don't believe that works. Cutting Heaven, Crushing Earth says that you "apply" the runes from handwraps to a qualifying weapon. Then, Blazons of Shared Power says that, "As long as you're wielding both the primary weapon and the secondary weapon, the secondary weapon gains the benefit of the fundamental runes on the primary weapon." (Emphasis added.)

Since the primary weapon in your suggestion doesn't actually have any runes on it, the secondary weapon for Blazons would not get any runes.
The runes, via the feat, are applied from the handwraps by the feat to, but are not actually engraved on, the qualifying melee weapon.

The bold emphasis doesn't say 'engraved on', you're adding that interpretation where it doesn't exist.

You would be right if it said apply the 'effects' of runes like the pre-remaster champion blade ally language used to be or the new exemplar Peerless under Heaven L7 epithet where you can get the effects of a bonus grievous rune. But without the keyword 'effects' the literal runes are being applied as is the current game's language precedent. This is one of the stealth nerfs of remaster language to the champion blade ally feature (its no longer the effect of a 4th rune but you just get the rune which will count against the weapon's max rune slots).

This combo is inclusive of property runes/fundamental runes to your 1H melee weapon. When you upgrade blazons you will also get the property runes.

By your take -- the literal runes are being applied -- Cutting Heaven, Crushing Earth creates an infinite wealth hack:

put on handwraps with runes.

pick up a qualifying weapon.

transfer runes from qualifying weapon to runestones.

sell runes.

rinse and repear.

That is too obviously too good to be true.

If the wealth hack does not work because there are no actual runes on the qualifying melee weapon (applied from handwraps via CH,CE) then Blazons hack cannot work since there are no runes on the primary weapon for the secondary weapon to gain the benefits.

The only thing that works right now is the L6 feat (Cutting Heavens and Crushing Earth) from Spirit Warrior archetype:

Quote:

Your skill in combining fist and blade has grown into a seamless art where each attack makes an opponent more vulnerable to the next.

As long as you have invested and are wearing a set of handwraps of mighty blows, you also apply their runes to a single weapon you’re wielding that can be used with your Overwhelming Combination ability. You gain the following benefits.

• When you successfully Strike an opponent with this weapon, it’s off-guard to the next Strike you make against it with a fist unarmed attack before the end of your next turn.

• When you successfully Strike an opponent with your fist unarmed attack, it’s off-guard to the next Strike you make against it with a one-handed, agile, or finesse melee weapon before the end of your next turn.

So in theory you can go wraps to melee 1H as primary on the blazon's of shared power to a ranged 1H weapon as the secondary on the blazon's of shared power.

Its a lot of hoops to jump through for a melee oriented archetype. You're better to just use a weapon IMO.

I don't believe that works. Cutting Heaven, Crushing Earth says that you "apply" the runes from handwraps to a qualifying weapon. Then, Blazons of Shared Power says that, "As long as you're wielding both the primary weapon and the secondary weapon, the secondary weapon gains the benefit of the fundamental runes on the primary weapon." (Emphasis added.)

Since the primary weapon in your suggestion doesn't actually have any runes on it, the secondary weapon for Blazons would not get any runes.
The runes, via the feat, are applied from the handwraps by the feat to, but are not actually engraved on, the qualifying melee weapon.

Question about Backgrounds: how do I simulate the person who's looking for a lost friend/relative? He is traveling all over and asking around...

The anticipation for the encounter was that the boss would flee, leaving henchmen to slow the party long enough to make the escape. There was no prior consideration for how long it would take to ride a zipline. I fully expected the entire party to spend three or four rounds dealing with the mooks and the boss' escape would have simply been narrative, but... lesson learned :)

For extra clarification:

Thanks for the great feedback!!

So, I was running an encounter and the "boss" of that fight, having taken enough damage, Noped right out of the scene. He [1a] interacted to open a window, [1a] interacted to loop a leather strap around a rope and [1a] "fell" through the window riding the zipline down.

Now, one of my players, playing a swaggering dude with little care for self-preservation, decided to pursue the fleeing villain and described his intended activity to be, "I wanna release my grip [from his two-handed long-hammer], run across the room, dive out the window, and at the last second, flip the shaft of my hammer over the rope and grab the other end with my free hand to ride the zipline down..."

[Aside He earned a hero point... and I even awarded him Panache even though he's not a Swashbuckler.]

I adjudicated the turn to be 1+ rounds: [free-action] release, [1a] Stride, [1a] Athletics check to Leap, [reaction] to Grab an Edge to successfully clear the rope with the shaft of the hammer, [1a] grab the hammer with his free hand, and from there it was a "controlled" fall. The beginning of his following round was a [free-action] release his hammer with one hand and [1a] Acrobatics check to "dismount" from the rope. Ultimately he failed the dismount, stumbled forward ten feet and fell prone, necessitating [1a] Stand and [1a] regrip his Hammer.

I'm second-guessing my call, a little bit. Should I have required an action to catch the rope instead of using the Grab an Edge reaction?

(Either way, it is a scene that will live long in the memories of that gaming group...)

Errenor wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

If a player can fall prone for free

A player maybe can. But characters can't: Drop Prone

The trick is not to Fall Prone, but merely to fall. ;D

... and bonus points if you manage to fall and miss the ground.

Bottom line still remains than an Archetype is giving the full damage gimmick to another class...

To clarify, the main complaint has been on the Dedication, not the Archetype on whole.

In that vein, you are incorrect and overstating it. The dedication is not "giving the full damage gimmick to another class." What it does do is grant one ikon of choice. That is a significant distinction.

Sure, the chosen Ikon could grant additional damage as an immanence ability... or not. A multiclassed Exemplar could just as easily take Thousand-League Sandals, or some other worn ikon or a body ikon, instead of a weapon ikon.

The dedication simply does not, blanketly, "[give] the full damage gimmick to another class."

... a 2nd-level dedication feat adding 8 spirit damage to Strikes and thinking it was okay.

That's an overly simplified way of presenting it.

How many times have you ever decided that one of your characters would use Tumble Through to move from one space to another when Stride would have the same effect?

Every, single, movement made by Tinya, The Wonder of the East, an acrobat in The Circus of Wayward Wonders.

That is not the intent of Tumble Through.

So? It's not game breaking. It certainly isn't in the realm of TGTBT.

Tumble Through also asks for an Acrobatics check against the enemy's Reflex DC as soon as you try to enter its space.

FIFY

If you don't try to enter an enemy's space, no check is required.