|
you need to retract your claim that you were right as to the rules in this case
probably ought to be errata, not an email answer.)
if it were clear, we wouldn't have hundreds of posts on the topic.
Consider my claim retracted. I wasn't correct, but neither are those that believe it works on Barbarian Rage.
I seriously doubt we will ever see this errata'd because the limited number of in real life people who are confused about this ability and think it works on Barbarian Rage is so few. It isn't worth their time to fix, but I wish they would fix everything. I'd be happy with a 1,200 page FAQ book.
On the use of clear, I used that as a specific contrast to the "clearly works on Rage bonuses to stats." Unless everyone agrees there can be multiple RAW interpretations, I'll champion the alternative with equal vigor.
My first time reading the ability, I saw it as a boon to barbarians, back when I was first getting started with pathfinder (I had played at about 3 sessions of 3.5, so I would say I was fairly newb). My brothers also saw the same. I think I've mentioned this before, but I have never heard of it being any other way until just recently, it being a few good years. I've seen at least 4 barbarians with this property since that time, from 3 different players, in two different states (Oregon and Idaho).
If they have enough experience to know that a barbarian's rage bonus is a morale bonus, which would become obvious after playing a barbarian, then they will think that the courageous property works just as it says it does, for morale bonuses. But the argument extends past barbarians, and to bards too.
I'm afraid, James, that you are in the minority here. That doesn't mean your wrong, but it does mean that if your right it does need to be clarified. Of course, my experience is just one of many different people's experiences, but I would say I've had a lot of it, especially recently (College life brings so much freedom to enjoy life the way you want to!)
I seriously doubt we will ever see this errata'd because the limited number of in real life people who are confused about this ability and think it works on Barbarian Rage is so few.
If by "few" you mean everybody who's played this game long enough to know that a Barbarian's Rage grants morale bonuses and has a solid grasp of the English language, then sure.
This was not even a question until this week.
Until it came up in the one thread it had never occured to me to read it that way. I don't think anyone in the two pfs groups even uses it.
Honestly, Courageous doesn't seem overpowered for a +1 bonus since;
1. It only gives +1 until you pay more money to upgrade the weapon and;
2. Even then it does nothing by itself.
Also I'm with Rynjin, even casual players know Barbarians bonuses are morale bonuses. Furthermore, the Furious Courageous weapon has been around since they've been printed without ever being questioned (because the RAW is super clear).
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If by "few" you mean everybody who's played this game long enough to know that a Barbarian's Rage grants morale bonuses and has a solid grasp of the English language, then sure.
This was not even a question until this week.
So in the 250+ PFS games I've played/GM (combined) and the countless home games (non-PFS) I've yet to see a single Barbarian using this. Not one. Not a single one.
You could say "but how do you know what they had", well when someone does something I don't understand I ask how. Even when I'm a player. I'm not shy. I might want to use that cool feature later.
If by "few" you mean everybody who's played this game long enough to know that a Barbarian's Rage grants morale bonuses and has a solid grasp of the English language, then sure.
This was not even a question until this week.
So in the 250+ PFS games I've played/GM (combined) and the countless home games (non-PFS) I've yet to see a single Barbarian using this. Not one. Not a single one.
You could say "but how do you know what they had", well when someone does something I don't understand I ask how. Even when I'm a player. I'm not shy. I might want to use that cool feature later.
Probably because they didn't know about it. PFS is much like a random game on a multiplayer FPS...the average player is not going to have much game knowledge.
(the fear that some forum posts might be off the cuff is why the "not official until FAQ" was given)
That was only part of the reason for the ruling, there's also the accessibility issue. Official errata and FAQ posted where everyone can find them at a moment's notice. "SKR sent an e-mail to a guy making third-party software that got mentioned in a forum post" is the kind of thing that's only accessible to people who regularly hang out on the forums and check every thread.
I've been wrong once I can remember (FCT on Monk Unarmed Strike) and I've been right more times than I can count (Most recently on Courageous property).
My original reading of RAW is it clearly only applies to Saves vs Fear. Learning RAI, you can see why they said "any" as a way to expand to all saves but not non-save morale bonuses.
*raises eyebrow*
It doesn't seem like you were right about it.
Now, if SKR's post there gets borne out, then neither was I or anyone I'd ever spoken about the item before then with, so I can't throw my stones too hard with all this glass around, but...
No, even is SKR's post is the way it was intended, everyone presently arguing it applies to all morale bonuses from any source will still be correct. Only if they release a FAQ/Errata and then afterwards those people continue to argue it applies to all morale bonuses from any source can that argument be wrong.
|
I've been wrong once I can remember (FCT on Monk Unarmed Strike) and I've been right more times than I can count (Most recently on Courageous property).
Well, you were also wrong here :p But overall, you are right a lot of the time. The sohei thing went against Intent of author anyway.
everyone presently arguing it applies to all morale bonuses from any source will still be correct. Only if they release a FAQ/ErrataAgain, you can't say that because that isn't the only interpretation/version of RAW.
Actually, I *can* say that, because its the only interpretation of RAW possible using the English Language (literally the only one). "All" is a very encompassing term. But at this point, you are no longer arguing in good faith as the difference between RAW and RAI has been explained to you many times and you have made zero RAW arguments. Arguing anything other than "all morale bonuses" "from any source" (ie the +1/2 enhancment bonus increase to morale bonuses adds to any morale bonus from any source) is arguing RAI, not RAW.
But no please, make a RAW argument. Because that sentence is crystal clear RAW.
everyone presently arguing it applies to all morale bonuses from any source will still be correct. Only if they release a FAQ/ErrataAgain, you can't say that because that isn't the only interpretation/version of RAW.
You state the bolded part as though there is another version of the RAW in question. There isn't.
There is only one "version" of RAW, and that's what's been posted constantly in this thread. There is no "other version" of the RAW regarding the Courageous property, and you're talking as if there is. Again, there is not. If there was, I'm sure you would've posted it already.
This "awkward RAW" argument that you throw out is simply your viewpoint of "Well, I think it's stupid-level overpowered and it should do X." There's a few things wrong with saying it like that:
1. You're saying it like there are multiple versions of RAW. Sure, there very well could be if we were comparing a Pre-Errata version to a Post-Errata version, but there are no such subjects on this topic. If there is some sort of secret passage hidden somewhere in a miniscule corner of a page that you're hiding from everybody, I highly suggest you share it with the class, because otherwise we're back to square 1.
2. You're essentially saying the quoted part above is the RAW, when that's clearly not what it says. Whether that's what's intended is what you're contesting, and that's to be determined through a FAQ/Errata from the PDT; until then, it's simply your viewpoint as to whether it should or should not be changed to reflect the desired intent.
3. You (as well as the others on your side) say the "awkward RAW" interpretation is "LOLOMGWTFBBQ-OP" for what it does and (supposedly) costs, but it's simply a synergy-like effect, that does absolutely nothing when there is no synergy put towards it. It's like saying a character with 13 Strength using a two-handed weapon is absolutely broken. You substitute that same character with 20+ Strength, and you're then ignoring what he sacrificed to get that level of power, and not to mention he still isn't overpowered compared to spellcasters ending fights before initiative is even rolled.
4. You are also using that as an argument for the reason why it doesn't work. Sure, it's sensible for when you are creating content and proposing what it should and should not be able to do when you're designing it, but it has no place for determining what it actually does, as written and/or intended.
At this point I'm just going to ignore every post you make in this thread; you're so dead-set in believing your interpretation is the RAW of the book that there is no way I can convince or explain it to you that what you think is the RAW is simply your viewpoint of the RAI, and that the RAI is basically inconclusive until the PDT comes in and tells us what's supposed to go down.
various things about balance
On the topic of balance, for what it's worth, while the discussion I was having with Sslarn never covered the second part of my initial question
Does this fall outside of the general tolerances of item pricing (and if so, how far outside, compared to how far the "fear saves only" interpretation does?)
I'm not yet convinced that it does. There is a lot of room in Pathfinder item pricing for some ways to get a bonus being better priced than others: anyone who has ever contemplated buying bracers of armor +8 for their fighter rather than a +2 breastplate knows that well enough.
Or who has ever contemplated whether it would be better to upgrade their amulet of natural armor or their magic full plate from +2 to +3 first. Or whatever. There might be minor advantages or disadvantages to either, but for a character who wears armor, there's no great difference between a +1 AC from natural armor or from enhancement to armor bonus other than that one costs twice as much.
So it's clear that item pricing allows for the possibility for two different paths to a similar end result to offer different pricing, within certain tolerances for divergence. We've produced some pricing numbers - can it be established that a courageous weapon is a good enough deal that it is significantly outside these general tolerances?
No, even is SKR's post is the way it was intended, everyone presently arguing it applies to all morale bonuses from any source will still be correct. Only if they release a FAQ/Errata and then afterwards those people continue to argue it applies to all morale bonuses from any source can that argument be wrong.
An errata would be the kind of bearing out I had in mind, as I alluded to before.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Because that sentence is crystal clear RAW.
It isn't or this wouldn't be an issue and the various threads wouldn't have discussions.
also wrong here :p
Point
as though there is another version of the RAW in question. There isn't.
According to you. But just believe you won't accept or refuse to accept it, doesn't make it disappear.
Because that sentence is crystal clear RAW.It isn't or this wouldn't be an issue and the various threads wouldn't have discussions.
also wrong here :pPoint
as though there is another version of the RAW in question. There isn't.According to you. But just believe you won't accept or refuse to accept it, doesn't make it disappear.
It has discussions because one side is wrong and refuses to accept that fact. The side opposing the RAW has not presented a single RAW argument against courageous working on "all morale bonuses" "from any source". The reason they have no provided a RAW argument against that is because one does not exist, because the RAW here leaves very little to interpretation.
Two sides can argue without both sides having a point. There can be two points of view with only one view being true. Not all opinions are equally valid. Merely because one continues to recite their position does not make it correct. And thus because one side continues to cite incorrect information, we have a discussion, mostly of the fact that the other side has yet to provide us any facts with which to take their position seriously. Anyway... that RAW argument I was asking for, please feel free to present it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
that RAW argument I was asking for, please feel free to present it.
Presented, and summarily dismissed. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't ...
There are lots of wonderful things you can do if you ignore context, logic, and anything else in the way of a cool rules interpretation. When you really want to keep it, you just keep asking the other side to post a rebuttal and ignore all they do post.
that RAW argument I was asking for, please feel free to present it.Presented, and summarily dismissed. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't ...
There are lots of wonderful things you can do if you ignore context, logic, and anything else in the way of a cool rules interpretation. When you really want to keep it, you just keep asking the other side to post a rebuttal and ignore all they do post.
To powerful - is not a RAW argument.
Not according to Herolabs - is not a RAW argument.
The first sentence talks about fear saves - is a RAW argument, its just not a valid one to make due to the phrasing of the next sentence "In addition,".
You know what they say about three strikes right? I'm a casual player myself though, so I'll let you take a 4th swing anyway.
Stop feeding the troll.
that RAW argument I was asking for, please feel free to present it.Presented, and summarily dismissed. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't ...
There are lots of wonderful things you can do if you ignore context, logic, and anything else in the way of a cool rules interpretation. When you really want to keep it, you just keep asking the other side to post a rebuttal and ignore all they do post.
Context is irrelevant. Only what is actually written matters.
A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1).
Please bold where it explicitly states that the "In addition" part only applies to saving throws. If your argument is RAW, you should be able to do so. The fact is...is that no such text exists. This is why your interpretation cannot be considered RAW, Rules as Written. Rules as Intended(by the Developer), on the other hand doesn't care what is written. If you want to make an argument about RAI that's fine and we'd accept that easily, but you keep saying your interpretation is RAW and it just simply isn't.
Actually, I *can* say that, because its the only interpretation of RAW possible using the English Language (literally the only one)."All" is a very encompassing term.everyone presently arguing it applies to all morale bonuses from any source will still be correct. Only if they release a FAQ/ErrataAgain, you can't say that because that isn't the only interpretation/version of RAW.
First of all, "all" does not appear in the text at all. This is what it actually says:
"This special ability can only be added to a melee weapon. A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1)."Not necessarily, unless one chooses to only accept interpretations that go word by word while disregarding context. I agree with you with that reading being the most obvious, and most well-supported in the language, and that the "+ to all saves" is silly and has absolutely zero support in the language, but reading the "any morale bonus" as any morale bonus discussed in the context of the ability is a fully valid interpretation.
The thing is, you can always get really anal about wording. By RAW RAWy-RAW RAW the Resistance universal monster ability does not prevent damage:
"A creature with this special quality ignores some damage of the indicated type each time it takes damage of that kind (commonly acid, cold, electricity, or fire). The entry indicates the amount and type of damage ignored."
So, they ignore the damage.
They fail to consider it, or disregard it completely.
If we read it word for word we can come to the conclusion that a Pit Fiend takes full damage from cold - she's just oblivious to it and won't care about it until it kills her.
But that's not the case, because the rules are supposed to be read nuanced by common sense. That is not going by RAI, it's reading the RAW with common sense. RAI is important when a rule might do something completely different than what it deals with, or when common sense reading of the rule isn't enough to understand it.
Context is irrelevant. Only what is actually written matters.
Would you say then that you can ray of frost a pit fiend to death, and they won't react to it? And that if it has the Diehard feat, after it has died from the ray of frosts it'll continue to fly around (staggered) and kill people?
Context is irrelevant. Only what is actually written matters.Would you say then that you can ray of frost a pit fiend to death, and they won't react to it? And that if it has the Diehard feat, after it has died from the ray of frosts it'll continue to fly around (staggered) and kill people?
The irony here is that your response to that bit only makes sense when it's taken out of context.
The irony here is that your response to that bit only makes sense when it's taken out of context.Context is irrelevant. Only what is actually written matters.Would you say then that you can ray of frost a pit fiend to death, and they won't react to it? And that if it has the Diehard feat, after it has died from the ray of frosts it'll continue to fly around (staggered) and kill people?
Which is part of the point. Context is always important. Issue is, context doesn't always provide a clear answer (as in this case).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I've seen a lot of arguments that buffing all morale bonuses would be too powerful
suggests that the wording isn't, in fact, clear in and of itself.
It's power doesn't have much to do with the problem. The wording isn't as clear as it should be. That is kinda the point whenever there are multiple interpretations. In this case if it were +5, but otherwise the same it would still be confusing. Examples go a long way, so as a +5 enhancement it could use a "such as Barbarian Rage" as an additional 4 words.
To powerful - is not a RAW argument.
Not according to Herolabs - is not a RAW argument.
Agreed, which is why I never worry about power when making rules assessments. I also don't worry too much about Herolab, because it has been wrong (Wild Shape shaman features.)
not a valid one ... "In addition,".
I do pay attention when a quorum of the development team determined the meaning the actual RAW of the text without saying "and we need to fix it because it doesn't say what we intended".
In this case they should fix it, by adding two words "to saves" in the additional part. The "In addition" doesn't mean "an completely unrelated to this" but rather "in conjunction it also".
written in a context-free formal language, there will always be someone with a wonky "interpretation"
Which is the problem with the concept of "one and only RAW" assertions.
Cool trivia point: People cannot reliably tell you what they "would have" thought about something
I always believe Courageous worked on save vs fear only, and having never ran into a player using it in the wild I didn't participate in many threads. I recently found that post on the HL forums, so I felt like sharing the wisdom. Which results in the debate over a settled issue. The debate after it is settled is the bewildering part for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's not settled. That's the point.
You're the only person on either side of this that thinks it's settled.
Unofficial clarifications like this have poofed into the ether by the time a FAQ/Errata comes out many a time.
Context is irrelevant. Only what is actually written matters.Would you say then that you can ray of frost a pit fiend to death, and they won't react to it? And that if it has the Diehard feat, after it has died from the ray of frosts it'll continue to fly around (staggered) and kill people?
When resistance completely negates the damage from an energy attack, the attack does not disrupt a spell.
Omission and hyperbole do not aid your argument when it comes to light that you are being purposefully obtuse. By simply reading the rest of the passage you learn that ignored is simply being used as a synonym for negate.
The whole 'awkward rule' argument strikes me as very similar to this
Because it's not settled. That's the point.Ok, so in your mind when is something settled?
Only when it is in official Errata or FAQ?
Not everyone will agree to that
Yes, I noticed.
Apparently not even the PDT is sticking to their word on that one.
Context is irrelevant. Only what is actually written matters.Would you say then that you can ray of frost a pit fiend to death, and they won't react to it? And that if it has the Diehard feat, after it has died from the ray of frosts it'll continue to fly around (staggered) and kill people?When resistance completely negates the damage from an energy attack, the attack does not disrupt a spell.Omission and hyperbole do not aid your argument when it comes to light that you are being purposefully obtuse. By simply reading the rest of the passage you learn that ignored is simply being used as a synonym for negate.
If we wanna go by RAW, that changes nothing. It just puts in an explanation of what happens when the resistance does something that it cannot. It may be RAI for it to prevent damage, but by RAWy-RAW resistance does not prevent damage, only allows the creature to ignore it.
Kind of like if magic missile said "creatures blinded by magic missile grow green feathers". That does not by RAW mean magic missiles now blind people, it just makes a nonsensical line.
And while I agree it's a reductio ad absurdum and that the rules should not be read that way, it is still a relevant point to make to those that claim (and I quote):
Context is irrelevant. Only what is actually written matters.
Also, there's nothing implying "ignore" is a synonym to "negate" in this sentence. The word does not have a game term definition, and neither Merriam-Webster, thesaurus.com, nor Collins dictionary lists "negate" as a synonym to "ignore", which means it's probably a pretty fringe meaning at best.
And again, using an out of context quote to prove your point about context is a bit hypocritical of you, considering the only reason you're arguing about whether context is relevant or not is because you're talking about a quote that IN CONTEXT did not mean that all context is irrelevant, it meant that in the terms of RAW, the context of the rules as intended is not relevant. RAW is what the rules say, not what the rules necessarily mean.
Your entire argument about context is borne from you ironically IGNORING CONTEXT YOURSELF (and thus making it pointless and irrelevant to the discussion), since it seemed that you for some reason took my earlier comment about the same thing as some kind of compliment.
<eyes this thread>
<makes note of RAI and SKR's response>
<sets that into table rules>
I don't need this sort of insanity. Thanks for letting me know about it.
I find it odd some people think Courageous is "oh so crazy op, insane, double bonuspalooza". Its a just a good ability. Evidently anything that can synergize with stuff is just completely overpowered now a days, even it requires you to have another ability before it does anything at all.
If we wanna go by RAW, that changes nothing. It just puts in an explanation of what happens when the resistance does something that it cannot. It may be RAI for it to prevent damage, but by RAWy-RAW resistance does not prevent damage, only allows the creature to ignore it.
Your "Example" isn't about ignoring context, it's about game defined terms.
If theres no defined game term, I expect it to function exactly as how the dictionary defines it.
Negate
1.
nullify; make ineffective.
So if we plug negate for ignored we get...
A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to negate some damage of a certain type per attack, but it does not have total immunity.
Negate and Ignore are essentially synonyms when we consider their wording in the game. Cold Resist 10 essentially negates 10 cold damage dealt. Thus ignore is being used as a synonym for negate.
Ultimately all you're trying to do is discredit my argument with an absurd rebuttal. To which I reply...grow up mate. We're mature adults. What point are you trying to make? My posts were in reply to a person claiming context when there is no context for the weapon enhancement that supports his claims. So even if you claim that context has it's place(and it does...sometimes), it really has no place currently in this discussion.
it meant that in the terms of RAW, the context of the rules as intended is not relevant. RAW is what the rules say, not what the rules necessarily mean.
I know that's what Scavion meant. I'm disagreeing with him. And again, with that way to read the rules, Resistance does not protect against damage.
it meant that in the terms of RAW, the context of the rules as intended is not relevant. RAW is what the rules say, not what the rules necessarily mean.I know that's what Scavion meant. I'm disagreeing with him. And again, with that way to read the rules, Resistance does not protect against damage.
Your issue isn't with context however, it's with ignored not being a defined game term, though we know from interpretation that it's meant as negate or reduce in regards to Energy Resistance.
If we wanna go by RAW, that changes nothing. It just puts in an explanation of what happens when the resistance does something that it cannot. It may be RAI for it to prevent damage, but by RAWy-RAW resistance does not prevent damage, only allows the creature to ignore it.
Your "Example" isn't about ignoring context, it's about game defined terms.
If theres no defined game term, I expect it to function exactly as how the dictionary defines it.
Negate
1.
nullify; make ineffective.So if we plug negate for ignored we get...
A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to negate some damage of a certain type per attack, but it does not have total immunity.Negate and Ignore are essentially synonyms when we consider their wording in the game. Cold Resist 10 essentially negates 10 cold damage dealt. Thus ignore is being used as a synonym for negate.
Ultimately all you're trying to do is discredit my argument with an absurd rebuttal. To which I reply...grow up mate. We're mature adults. What point are you trying to make? My posts were in reply to a person claiming context when there is no context for the weapon enhancement that supports his claims. So even if you claim that context has it's place(and it does...sometimes), it really has no place currently in this discussion.
In what way is this not inferring things not stated in the rules? Ignore is not a defined game term. You are swapping out one word with one dictionary defined meaning for another word with a different dictionary defined meaning. If you claim that by RAW resistance protects against damage because the ability makes more sense that way and because you can infer that "ignore" in this case should be read as "negate" - even though that isn't a common meaning of the word - then you are making claims about RAW backed up by context and common sense, using RAI to nuance your reading of the RAW. Which I'm all for, and I suspect you are too actually, just that in this discussion, you seem to reject that very thing.
Reading this:
"A creature with this special quality ignores some damage of the indicated type each time it takes damage of that kind (commonly acid, cold, electricity, or fire). The entry indicates the amount and type of damage ignored.
And determining that "ignore" is just a loose choice of words, used because people can consider the context and instead read it as "negate", and that this ability reduces damage you take, and making the claim that this reading is RAW - I fully agree with that. You are inferring things not in the ability, because we can assume the ability was written for people who can use common sense.
It's also the same thing as reading this:
"A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1)."
And determining "any morale bonus" is just a loose choice of words, used because people can consider the context and instead take it as "any morale bonus discussed in this ability", and that this ability thus buffs saves vs fear, and claiming that this reading is RAW.
The difference between the two passages is that on one we must interpret ignore because it isn't a game defined term and on the other it is written almost entirely as game defined terms.
The difference between the two passages is that on one we must interpret ignore because it isn't a game defined term and on the other it is written almost entirely as game defined terms.
I don't even know which you claim is which. Neither "any" nor "ignore" is game defined terms, both have dictionary meanings that we can consider against what the ability should do and thus sub them for different words (such as you did about resistance).
The difference between the two passages is that on one we must interpret ignore because it isn't a game defined term and on the other it is written almost entirely as game defined terms.I don't even know which you claim is which. Neither "any" nor "ignore" is game defined terms, both have dictionary meanings that we can consider against what the ability should do and thus sub them for different words (such as you did about resistance).
Any source is certainly defined. Any other source refers to any other source of morale bonuses.
Any is hardly a word to argue the definition of. In fact go ahead.
Oh look cross referencing. Here we see energy resistance further defined.
Again your issue seems to have more to do with words not being game defined in a glossary rather than context.
|
various things about balanceOn the topic of balance, for what it's worth, while the discussion I was having with Sslarn never covered the second part of my initial question
Does this fall outside of the general tolerances of item pricing (and if so, how far outside, compared to how far the "fear saves only" interpretation does?)I'm not yet convinced that it does. There is a lot of room in Pathfinder item pricing for some ways to get a bonus being better priced than others: anyone who has ever contemplated buying bracers of armor +8 for their fighter rather than a +2 breastplate knows that well enough.
Or who has ever contemplated whether it would be better to upgrade their amulet of natural armor or their magic full plate from +2 to +3 first. Or whatever. There might be minor advantages or disadvantages to either, but for a character who wears armor, there's no great difference between a +1 AC from natural armor or from enhancement to armor bonus other than that one costs twice as much.
+2 ghost touch, mithral, weightless, no skill penalty, no arcane spell failure breastplate. The bracers are a force effect, weight almost nothing and have no encumbrance penalty or arcane spell failure chance.
Still costly, but they have some extra benefits that can compensate in the hand of the optimal user. The price of the magical items is based on the optimal user, not the worst user.The natural armor bonus work when you are polymorphed. The armor bonus don't. Again, the price is based on the best user.
Why courageous should be priced on the basis of the worst user?
(Note: I think that the text of the ability give the ability benefit to all morale bonuses but that is overpowered for a +1 weapon bonus, especially if you use the wield = wear interpretation for armor spikes or spoked gauntlets)