Dwarf Brawler Favored Combat Bonus

[Xaxaphone]

The brawler favored class bonus for a dwarf reads: "Reduce the hardness of any object made from clay, stone, or metal by 1 whenever the object is struck by the brawler’s unarmed strike (minimum 0).", according to the ACG.
Does this mean that a level one dwarf brawler could turn a wall of stone or steel into hardness zero jelly after hitting it with his fists enough times? While I can't see that being the case, it reads like it can be done.

[Efreeti]

The way I read it, it could be translated to "ignore X points of hardness from specified materials when you attack them", where X is the number of times you took the favoured class bonus.

[Melkiador]

You are supposed to subtract your FCB modifier from the object's toughness.

[Claxon]

It's poorly worded, it doesn't actually reduce the hardness of the object. It means you subtract the number from the hardness of an object each time you punch it.

[Xaxaphone]

Thanks for the quick replies, guys. I'm glad there is total agreement on how it works, cuz the wording threw me off a bit.

[TGMaxMaxer]

That seems to be the way everyone reads it, because that is what they expect it to do.

The actual text does what you originally thought, per RAW.

However, with the atrocious editing, proofing, and all around bad writing of the ACG, it's just another case of what they wrote not adding up to what they (we guess) meant, as the actual RAW would be extremely potent for a FCB.

[kalwein]

TGMaxMaxer wrote:

That seems to be the way everyone reads it, because that is what they expect it to do.

The actual text does what you originally thought, per RAW.

However, with the atrocious editing, proofing, and all around bad writing of the ACG, it's just another case of what they wrote not adding up to what they (we guess) meant, as the actual RAW would be extremely potent for a FCB.

This just came up in my game last night. It does seem broken, as written. Was there ever an errata note on this?

[Ifusaso]

I'm voting to FAQ this... the duality of perception and large difference in power between the two make me *really* hope Paizo could give an actual answer.