Is there a new FAQ being answered this coming Friday?
Damn. Does that mean that my Iroran Paladin didn't turn into the Human (well, Tiefling) Torch when he used Divine Bond to add flaming to his unarmed strikes?Yep, no special effects of being constantly on fire (so monsters don't take damage for touching you, for instance) but it still means he gets an awesome visual where each of his unarmed strikes shoot out localized flame, like a firebender doing martial arts infused with fire.
But how many unarmed strikes does the Monk have? I imagine that you might look a little ridiculous with flaming hands, feet, knees, elbows and forehead. :P
(Though I absolutely love the visual of a Masterwork Transformation+Brilliant Energy+Flaming full-body monk. Enlightenment... of DOOOOOOOOOOOOO~OOOM~!)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With so many classes and archetypes and thousands of feats out there, it woundn't be cool to have a ability identification mechanic ? We already have spellcraft for spells, but what tour stance on class abilities/feats identification ? They do it all the time on anime, bit i really don't know if players should identify a orc fighter among orc barbarians on distancie, or have to explain what that brawler is doping exactly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With so many classes and archetypes and thousands of feats out there, it woundn't be cool to have a ability identification mechanic ? We already have spellcraft for spells, but what tour stance on class abilities/feats identification ? They do it all the time on anime, bit i really don't know if players should identify a orc fighter among orc barbarians on distancie, or have to explain what that brawler is doping exactly.
It makes sense to me; heck it could be a special feature for fighters, and maybe brawlers too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With so many classes and archetypes and thousands of feats out there, it woundn't be cool to have a ability identification mechanic ? We already have spellcraft for spells, but what tour stance on class abilities/feats identification ? They do it all the time on anime, bit i really don't know if players should identify a orc fighter among orc barbarians on distancie, or have to explain what that brawler is doping exactly.It makes sense to me; heck it could be a special feature for fighters, and maybe brawlers too.
I let players roll sense motive vs DC 10+BAB to identify a fighting style, to basically figure out what class someone is with fighting style as a less metagaming mechanic for it. Add +5 to the DC for archetypes. You can Then figure out if someone is a military trained warrior (fighter), reckless warrior ruled by emotion (barbarian), etc...And pretty much give your players a reasonable means of metagaming the way spellcraft does for casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I let players roll sense motive vs DC 10+BAB to identify a fighting style, to basically figure out what class someone is with fighting style as a less metagaming mechanic for it. Add +5 to the DC for archetypes. You can Then figure out if someone is a military trained warrior (fighter), reckless warrior ruled by emotion (barbarian), etc...And pretty much give your players a reasonable means of metagaming the way spellcraft does for casters.With so many classes and archetypes and thousands of feats out there, it woundn't be cool to have a ability identification mechanic ? We already have spellcraft for spells, but what tour stance on class abilities/feats identification ? They do it all the time on anime, bit i really don't know if players should identify a orc fighter among orc barbarians on distancie, or have to explain what that brawler is doping exactly.It makes sense to me; heck it could be a special feature for fighters, and maybe brawlers too.
I will generally allow skills Profession (soldier) to figure that kind of stuff out, with bonuses for fighters.
I use a similar mechanic to both, but also give bonuses to monks, who study stances and the like for their studies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still remember in one of the Complete books (Adventurer or Warrior) there was a mechanic for Sense Motive that allowed you to basically check the power level of the enemy you were about to fight, and if you rolled high enough you got a pretty accurate assessment on whether or not the thing was about to whoop your ass.
Path of War has Knowledge: Martial which can sorta do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game needs Knowledge: Culinary so you can tell which food preparation style any given cook you encounter in the wild is using.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a quick interjection on that topic, there is a [urlhttp://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/more-races/monstrous-races-21-30-rp/centaur-28-rp]Cetaur race[/url] made by Paizo.
If it didn't have the Advanced Str/Dex/Con it would be quite reasonable as a PC race. It'd be 16 RP, and fairly weakish for that amount without the free +2 Str/Dex/Con on top of its +2 Str/Wis.
They'd be even moreso with the "Undersized weaponry" ability Bestiary Centaurs have.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a quick interjection on that topic, there is a Centaur race made by Paizo.
If it didn't have the Advanced Str/Dex/Con it would be quite reasonable as a PC race. It'd be 16 RP, and fairly weakish for that amount without the free +2 Str/Dex/Con on top of its +2 Str/Wis.
They'd be even moreso with the "Undersized weaponry" ability Bestiary Centaurs have.
Link fixed.
Also, here's <the PRD link> in case you'd rather.
|
|
Hi Mark,
I've been running a group of new/newish player through Mummy's Mask over the last few months, and while they've got the basics of play down just fine at this point, they're struggling with strategizing equipment purchases. Awash in a sea of options, don't really know what they *can* grab much less what they *should* think about grabbing.
Of course, this is to some extent my responsibility as GM and I'm doing what I can, but I'm really hoping that Unchained will give me some alternate rules systems that can help me simplify that aspect of the game (it's one of my least favorite aspects of PF, personally, so I was hoping for it anyway ... but running for new players has me *especially* interested in anything you've got!). Get rid of the big 6, etc.
So I'm looking forward to the scaling magic items preview next week, but in the meantime I'm wondering if you could maybe help me set my expectations for the release. I'm getting the impression that there won't be all that much to help simplify the equipment aspect, and that impression has me disappointed. Should I expect to be disappointed, or might I be pleasantly surprised?
(Maybe you don't feel comfortable commenting, since that might move too close to previewing content that either we'll hear about next week or will need to wait for release, and that's fine if you'd rather not comment. But I am hoping that some general expectations-setting is within-bounds.)
Thanks!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Concealment and Precision Damage: Does concealment (the 20% kind, not total concealment) negate all kinds of precision damage? There is some confusion from the multiple places where precision damage appears.
Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.
Light and Darkness remains unanswered, but scorpion whip FAQ doesn't care, and it's crawled up and stung that FAQ in the face to become the arthropod ruler of the FAQs. Will the fact that the scorpion whip FAQ asks 9 different questions instead of 1 cause it to take a while to be answered? Find out on the next FAQ Friday!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, sneak preview of Unchained rogue! Nice. :D
Hi Mark, I have a item Pricing question. Item is a Reliquary pouch.
a cloth or mail pouch with your deity’s holy symbol on it. You place a potion or scroll in it and you tap the pouch as a swift action and it releases the magic of the potion or scroll and it effects the wearer of the pouch.
The potion version sounds like it should be pretty similar in cost to a rod of lesser quicken; it could be used more times per day than 3, though, and surely would for anyone who bought it, so probably somewhat more. The scroll version works up to 9th level spells and puts self-only spells on other characters in addition to the action economy, so that one would cost so much, it might as well be an artifact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps I should'v clarified I was mostly pertaining to the mechanics of mounted combat and classes that grant mounts such as the cavalier and paladin.
Aha. The mount rules in general are confusing and sometimes a bit contradictory. Add in an intelligent character as the "mount" and it leads to the necessity of tons of judgment calls or house rules. This can be a problem even without centaurs when a character tries to claim they are using another character as a mount despite body shape.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Mark,
I've been running a group of new/newish player through Mummy's Mask over the last few months, and while they've got the basics of play down just fine at this point, they're struggling with strategizing equipment purchases. Awash in a sea of options, don't really know what they *can* grab much less what they *should* think about grabbing.
Of course, this is to some extent my responsibility as GM and I'm doing what I can, but I'm really hoping that Unchained will give me some alternate rules systems that can help me simplify that aspect of the game (it's one of my least favorite aspects of PF, personally, so I was hoping for it anyway ... but running for new players has me *especially* interested in anything you've got!). Get rid of the big 6, etc.
So I'm looking forward to the scaling magic items preview next week, but in the meantime I'm wondering if you could maybe help me set my expectations for the release. I'm getting the impression that there won't be all that much to help simplify the equipment aspect, and that impression has me disappointed. Should I expect to be disappointed, or might I be pleasantly surprised?
(Maybe you don't feel comfortable commenting, since that might move too close to previewing content that either we'll hear about next week or will need to wait for release, and that's fine if you'd rather not comment. But I am hoping that some general expectations-setting is within-bounds.)
Thanks!
This has been a topic of interest for me as well, as some of my posts may indicate. I would say that in so much as you think that topics of interest for me made their way into the book (remembering it was ordered and turned over by the freelancers before I arrived), you can decide how likely you think you might be to see it in the actual book. Cryptic enough for ya?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, sneak preview of Unchained rogue! Nice. :D
At your service!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.
Does this mean that, say, the investigator's studied combat/studied strike and the swashbuckler's precise strike deed can't work against targets with concealment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.Does this mean that, say, the investigator's studied combat/studied strike and the swashbuckler's precise strike deed can't work against targets with concealment?
How can it possibly mean anything else?
|
|
Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.Does this mean that, say, the investigator's studied combat/studied strike and the swashbuckler's precise strike deed can't work against targets with concealment?How can it possibly mean anything else?
"In general" is just the sort of thing to drive pointless internet arguments, I'd say, despite the obvious* meaning of the FAQ as a whole. (The asterisk for obvious reasons.) Take it out and there's no question.
And thanks for the cryptic acknowledgement of my question, at least. I'll just wait for next week and hope that preview will go beyond the advertised to answer other major concerns, as this week's did so well re the Fighter. :-)
Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.Does this mean that, say, the investigator's studied combat/studied strike and the swashbuckler's precise strike deed can't work against targets with concealment?How can it possibly mean anything else?
I'm going to do my absolute best to make sense; please question me further if I don't.
The problem isn't that this FAQ is unclear. It is perfectly clear. The problem is that the term "precision damage" doesn't exist as an independent rule. For example, if I open my Core Rulebook and I look up "energy damage" or "extra damage" or "ability damage," all of those things are defined in the Core Rulebook. Precision damage is a term that was invented in the Advanced Player's Guide (I think it was first used in the Precise Strike teamwork feat) but never actually explained anywhere. Read every instance of "precision damage" in the game and none of them actually say what the rules for precision damage are, they just sort of tell you what is precision damage and what isn't.
To make a hypothetical connection, it would be as though the fighter was written as-is, but which weapons belonged to which weapon group were never listed. And then throughout Pathfinder, dozens of archetypes were written that referenced these "weapon groups" and eventually a new class too, the brawler, but in no book in six years were lists of weapon groups created, until an unexpected FAQ popped up that said, "Yes, guys, the urumi is in the light blades weapon group." That clarification would be nice and all, but no one knew what the intent for what weapons belonged where was because it was never actually defined.
To reiterate, it isn't that this FAQ doesn't make sense. Its that this FAQ is basically trying to add rules to a game mechanic that never had any rules. It was the Ma-Ti of game mechanics. Instead of an FAQ that says, "Yeah, all precision damage does this," this should have been an errata to the Core Rulebook that actually makes precision damage into a thing that players can actually look up and reference.
To further elaborate, one could make the argument that, "Oh, the swashbuckler's damage isn't d6s like the rogue's, so not being shut down by concealment must be a FEATURE of the class rather than something that needs fixing."
If there was an actual entry for precision damage in the Core Rulebook, this interpretation would be moot. But nowhere does any source ever actually state the basic rules for precision damage.
To further elaborate, one could make the argument that, "Oh, the swashbuckler's damage isn't d6s like the rogue's, so not being shut down by concealment must be a FEATURE of the class rather than something that needs fixing."
If there was an actual entry for precision damage in the Core Rulebook, this interpretation would be moot. But nowhere does any source ever actually state the basic rules for precision damage.
Yes, this is an excellent point about a possible incorrect interpretation, and it's the reason why this was a good FAQ candidate in the first place; you're essentially asking the essentials of the FAQ question again, or at least restating why the FAQ was necessary to clarify the previous ambiguity. But I think the FAQ answers this definitively.
(As an aside, precision damage is referenced in the CRB in both critical hits and also splash weapons. I agree that an entry in the glossary would have been nice.)
Yes, this is an excellent point and the reason why this was a good FAQ candidate in the first place; you're essentially asking the essentials of the FAQ question again, or at least restating why the FAQ was necessary to clarify the previous ambiguity. But I think the FAQ answers this definitively.To further elaborate, one could make the argument that, "Oh, the swashbuckler's damage isn't d6s like the rogue's, so not being shut down by concealment must be a FEATURE of the class rather than something that needs fixing."
If there was an actual entry for precision damage in the Core Rulebook, this interpretation would be moot. But nowhere does any source ever actually state the basic rules for precision damage.
Right, but it doesn't change that the FAQ adds concrete rules to an aspect of the game that never really had them before, which is why it is confusing.
To give another example, it would be like taking the line in the alchemist class that says, "the alchemist can draw the ingredients for his bomb, mix them, and throw the bomb as a standard action," to turn around and make an FAQ that says, "An alchemist needs two hands to mix the components of his bomb and one hand to throw them." Even if it makes sense (as the precise strike deed bit does), you essentially took something that didn't have text to support it (remember, what it means to deal "precision damage" is not defined anywhere in the game's rules) and added rules text to support it. That is the definition of an errata, except this precision damage FAQ still doesn't answer what it means to be precision damage.
Yes, this is an excellent point and the reason why this was a good FAQ candidate in the first place; you're essentially asking the essentials of the FAQ question again, or at least restating why the FAQ was necessary to clarify the previous ambiguity. But I think the FAQ answers this definitively.To further elaborate, one could make the argument that, "Oh, the swashbuckler's damage isn't d6s like the rogue's, so not being shut down by concealment must be a FEATURE of the class rather than something that needs fixing."
If there was an actual entry for precision damage in the Core Rulebook, this interpretation would be moot. But nowhere does any source ever actually state the basic rules for precision damage.
Right, but it doesn't change that the FAQ adds concrete rules to an aspect of the game that never really had them before, which is why it is confusing.
To give another example, it would be like taking the line in the alchemist class that says, "the alchemist can draw the ingredients for his bomb, mix them, and throw the bomb as a standard action," to turn around and make an FAQ that says, "An alchemist needs two hands to mix the components of his bomb and one hand to throw them." Even if it makes sense (as the precise strike deed bit does), you essentially took something that didn't have text to support it (remember, what it means to deal "precision damage" is not defined anywhere in the game's rules) and added rules text to support it. That is the definition of an errata, except this precision damage FAQ still doesn't answer what it means to be precision damage.
I'm afraid I don't follow then. It sounds like you're saying that tags and descriptors need to have a glossary entry before rules elements can interact with those tags and descriptors, which I don't think is what you mean. Precision damage is a category of damage that has special rules that apply to it, and it has been since the CRB. I agree that it would have been better if it was in the glossary, and thus had a better definition than "damage that is like a rogue's sneak attack damage," but it wasn't.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...except this precision damage FAQ still doesn't answer what it means to be precision damage.
This isn't a FAQ about what precision damage is. This is a FAQ about if concealment prevents precision damage. Thus defining precision damage is beyond the scope of the FAQ.
...except this precision damage FAQ still doesn't answer what it means to be precision damage.This isn't a FAQ about what precision damage is. This is a FAQ about if concealment prevents precision damage. Thus defining precision damage is beyond the scope of the FAQ.
Thanks TOZ! You have put it succinctly and I think better than I have been so far. If people particularly want a FAQ that adds a nicer definition of precision damage, I'm sure we'd be up to it if it was frequent.
(As an aside, precision damage is referenced in the CRB in both critical hits and also splash weapons. I agree that an entry in the glossary would have been nice.)
Referenced, yes. Defined, no.
Up until this point, precision damage's thing has been something that other abilities referenced; never something that has had a definition of its own. Basically, it has been something that always works until another effect tells you that it doesn't. Sneak attack tells you under what circumstances it turns on. So does studied combat, studied strike, and precise strike. Once you meet the qualifiers, the current rules language suggests that the ability works until something else says that it doesn't.
To use your example, if you met the prerequisites for the precision-based ability, the damage would normally be applied on a critical hit or a splash weapon attack. But those abilities have conditions that prevent the precision damage from being applied, even if you meet the precision ability's qualifiers. Precision damage is a tag, only stopped by things that have a counter-tag, so to speak.
So what this FAQ should do is note that it is going to be an errata to the concealment section of the Core Rulebook. If you read the concealment rules, concealment actually doesn't state that it blocks precision damage. Rather, it is the rogue's own class feature that states that a creature with concealment isn't affected by sneak attack's damage.
Here's another fun factoid: sneak attack itself actually doesn't state that its precision damage, despite two references to precision damage appearing in the Core Rulebook. So its also a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the rules that the whole "blocked by concealment" bit is a feature of precision damage, not of sneak attack. Because precision damage is not defined in the Core Rulebook. The FAQ is essentially adding rules to an entry that doesn't exist.
(By the way, this is an absolutely fascinating facet of the rules to explore!)
(As an aside, precision damage is referenced in the CRB in both critical hits and also splash weapons. I agree that an entry in the glossary would have been nice.)Referenced, yes. Defined, no.
Up until this point, precision damage's thing has been something that other abilities referenced; never something that has had a definition of its own. Basically, it has been something that always works until another effect tells you that it doesn't. Sneak attack tells you under what circumstances it turns on. So does studied combat, studied strike, and precise strike. Once you meet the qualifiers, the current rules language suggests that the ability works until something else says that it doesn't.
To use your example, if you met the prerequisites for the precision-based ability, the damage would normally be applied on a critical hit or a splash weapon attack. But those abilities have conditions that prevent the precision damage from being applied, even if you meet the precision ability's qualifiers. Precision damage is a tag, only stopped by things that have a counter-tag, so to speak.
So what this FAQ should do is note that it is going to be an errata to the concealment section of the Core Rulebook. If you read the concealment rules, concealment actually doesn't state that it blocks precision damage. Rather, it is the rogue's own class feature that states that a creature with concealment isn't affected by sneak attack's damage.
Here's another fun factoid: sneak attack itself actually doesn't state that its precision damage, despite two references to precision damage appearing in the Core Rulebook. So its also a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the rules that the whole "blocked by concealment" bit is a feature of precision damage, not of sneak attack. Because precision damage is not defined in the Core Rulebook. The FAQ is essentially adding rules to an entry that doesn't exist.
(By the way, this is an absolutely fascinating...
Although we sometimes have FAQ that reflect errata, clarifying rules that don't even have an entry to errata seems to me like a fundamentally major priority for a FAQ.
Thanks TOZ! You have put it succinctly and I think better than I have been so far. If people particularly want a FAQ that adds a nicer definition of precision damage, I'm sure we'd be up to it if it was frequent....except this precision damage FAQ still doesn't answer what it means to be precision damage.This isn't a FAQ about what precision damage is. This is a FAQ about if concealment prevents precision damage. Thus defining precision damage is beyond the scope of the FAQ.
@TOZ This is a valid point. However, it is equally valid that the Core Rulebook doesn't actually state that concealment is a non-qualifier for sneak attack damage, so this should really be flagged as being included in an upcoming errata to the Combat Chapter of the Core Rulebook.
@Mark Again, doing it as an FAQ isn't enough. It needs to be defined in the book itself. The Core Rulebook (as the Strategy Guide pointed out) has problems with assuming that its readers have played 3.5 or a game derived thereof already; might as well make it a little bit easier to pick up.
Thanks TOZ! You have put it succinctly and I think better than I have been so far. If people particularly want a FAQ that adds a nicer definition of precision damage, I'm sure we'd be up to it if it was frequent....except this precision damage FAQ still doesn't answer what it means to be precision damage.This isn't a FAQ about what precision damage is. This is a FAQ about if concealment prevents precision damage. Thus defining precision damage is beyond the scope of the FAQ.@TOZ This is a valid point. However, it is equally valid that the Core Rulebook doesn't actually state that concealment is a non-qualifier for sneak attack damage, so this should really be flagged as being included in an upcoming errata to the Combat Chapter of the Core Rulebook.
@Mark Again, doing it as an FAQ isn't enough. It needs to be defined in the book itself. The Core Rulebook (as the Strategy Guide pointed out) has problems with assuming that its readers have played 3.5 or a game derived thereof already; might as well make it a little bit easier to pick up.
I would love to make the CRB more user-friendly as we can. The existence of a FAQ does not in any way lessen the possibility of changes in the next errata.
I would love to make the CRB more user-friendly as we can. The existence of a FAQ does not in any way lessen the possibility of changes in the next errata.
Traditionally, FAQs that have a 100% chance of being reflected in an upcoming errata say something like, "This change will be reflected in an upcoming errata."
I'm less saying, "We need a possibility," and more saying, "This needs to happen, 100%. This being in the Core Rules is important to the simplification and overall health of the game."
To make matters worse, if they tried to define precision damage, it would be difficult to do so in a way that it does not turn favored enemy bonus damage into precision damage, since flavor wise, its 'know enough about your favored enemy to hit them where it hurts', which is awfully similar to the rogues'sneak attack.Not necessarily, the rogue's sneak attack is based on catching the enemy off-guard and hitting them in a vital spot, aka being very precise in where they place their attack. The ranger however has studied these types of enemies for a long time and has learned their ways of fighting, allowing him to effectively counterattack. Not really knowing their anatomy and striking their weak points, its more or less knowing how to effectively combat their style of fighting, the ranger knows his favored enemy's blindsides, weakpoints in stance, strengths, combat style, vital areas, anatomy, etc. it circumferences too much to be labeled precision-based damage, plus even mechanically, the bonus applies to multiple stats, not just damage.
If that were true it would also, in addition to the granted abilities, convey a stealth bonus, an AC bonus, CMD bonus, and a damage bonus not limited to weapon damage.
Mark,
I am hoping we can get some clarification on UMD's ability to emulate class features. Specifically, do the effective levels in the emulated class count for being considered a member of that class by the item?
One item where UMD's interaction is particularly confusing is the Ring of Revelation.
A ring of revelation is a divine item attuned to a particular oracular mystery and containing a revelation associated with that mystery (see the oracle class description). While wearing the ring, an oracle has access to that revelation and may use it as if she had it as a normal class feature. The oracle must have the appropriate mystery to use the ring, and must meet the level requirements (if any) of the revelation itself; for example, a ring of revelation (combat healer) is only usable by an oracle of at least 7th level with the battle mystery. If the oracle already has that revelation and the revelation gives an ability with a limited number of uses per day, the oracle can use that ability one additional time per day. The ring has no effect if worn by a non-oracle.
It seems to me that UMD could be used to emulate the needed mystery (not actually gaining use of the mystery, just being able to use the ring as if you had it). With the ring acting as if you had the mystery it would grant you it's revelation. The hiccup comes in where it says you must be an oracle. When UMD says you have effective levels in a class, is this enough to be considered a member of said class for the use of the item?
If possible could you offer some further clarity on whether an oracle with a different mystery could use UMD to trick the ring as well. The confusion on this point stems from where UMD says, "Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had the spell ability or class features of another class." Is a character able to emulate a class feature of the same class that they do not have?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We ran into a question while discussing the concealment FAQ. Basically, how does the lowlight vision text in Special Abilities interact with the lowlight vision text in the lighting rules text of chapter 7 in the CRB?
Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness. A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself. Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch.
Characters with low-light vision (elves, gnomes, and half-elves) can see objects twice as far away as the given radius. Double the effective radius of bright light, normal light, and dim light for such characters.
Near as I can tell, there are a few possibilities here.
A: Lowlight vision users treat all Dim Light as Dim Light, but double the range of light sources. The text in special abilities was copied from 3.5 erroneously.
B: Lowlight vision users treat all Dim Light as normal light. In this case it seems very odd to ask lowlight users to double the range of dim light when using light tools.
C: Lowlight vision users specifically treat moonlight as daylight, but otherwise follow the Dim Light rules. This doesn't require any changes, but seems oddly specific.
While I'd certainly be interested in your personal opinion, I also wanted to mention this since I know there's a big Lighting FAQ in the pipelines. It'd be nice to knock two FAQs off the list in one go!