Does the burly talent affect all carried weapons, reducing all their encumbrance? A PC has 3 ranks in burly and im trying to figure the benefits.

I cant find a Burly talent. Which bo0k is it in?

As written in the Dangerous Covenant (A sourcebook for the Hired Guns) page 32, Burly (a talent of the Hired Gun – Heavy specialization) reduces both Encumbrance AND Cumbersome. For a PC with 3 ranks in Burly, the Encumbrance score of a Heavy Repeating Blaster is reduced to 6 (instead of 9) and its Cumbersome rating is reduced to 2 (instead of 5). Even with a score of 2 in Brawn, this PC can use these heavy weapons without any weapon attachment, such as a tripod mount.

This image don't fit for a Brawn 2 character.

The description says " any wielded or carried weapon's Cumbersome quality and Encumbrance rating...(emphasis added)" so I guess it applies to all.

With 3 ranks that could be a lot of weapons, but if the character starts to abuse it, you could bring in the troublesome social situations of carrying a lot of weapons.

It applies to the one in your hands, not one in a holster or slung across your back. For those that are big into specifics of language, does it say "any weapon's" or "any weapons'" in the entry?

That's what I thought too, but it seems Domingo has the quote that proves us both wrong.

The description says " any wielded or carried weapon's Cumbersome quality and Encumbrance rating...(emphasis added)" so I guess it applies to all.

With 3 ranks that could be a lot of weapons, but if the character starts to abuse it, you could bring in the troublesome social situations of carrying a lot of weapons.

It says weapon's not weapons' so it only applies to one wielded or carried weapon at a time.

It applies to the one in your hands, not one in a holster or slung across your back. For those that are big into specifics of language, does it say "any weapon's" or "any weapons'" in the entry?

It says weapon's not weapons' so it only applies to one wielded or carried weapon at a time.

I stand corrected in that it only applies to one weapon. However, to be clear, the choice of what weapon receives the benefit should be up to the PC, not just the one in your hands.

It applies to the one in your hands, not one in a holster or slung across your back. For those that are big into specifics of language, does it say "any weapon's" or "any weapons'" in the entry?

It says weapon's not weapons' so it only applies to one wielded or carried weapon at a time.

I stand corrected in that it only applies to one weapon. However, to be clear, the choice of what weapon receives the benefit should be up to the PC, not just the one in your hands.

Why? It applies to the one they are carrying in their hands. Which makes sense. It should not apply to the weapon in your bag. The talent is about how you know how to handle a weapon in your hands. It does not mystically make a weapon weigh less.

It applies to the one in your hands, not one in a holster or slung across your back. For those that are big into specifics of language, does it say "any weapon's" or "any weapons'" in the entry?

It says weapon's not weapons' so it only applies to one wielded or carried weapon at a time.

I stand corrected in that it only applies to one weapon. However, to be clear, the choice of what weapon receives the benefit should be up to the PC, not just the one in your hands.

Why? It applies to the one they are carrying in their hands. Which makes sense. It should not apply to the weapon in your bag. The talent is about how you know how to handle a weapon in your hands. It does not mystically make a weapon weigh less.

If we are being particular with the exact wording it says "wielded or carried" and there is no distinction as to which weapon it applies to in the wording. A PC with a vibroknife and a heavy blaster rifle slings his rifle and draws his blade to try to kill a foe quietly suddenly loses his burliness? That doesn't make sense to me either. I would hate to have to constantly reconfigure my encumbrance based on what weapon I had in my hands.

I would allow a PC to apply Burly to one weapon, whatever the biggest one they have. Is it really unbalancing considering a PC must spend 105 XP to get an encumbrance benefit less than a backpack?

I'm not addressing the Cumbersome quality since it only applies to the checks when using that weapon and obviously would be in a PC's hands.

I'm inclined to agree with Domingo that the player in question should get to choose which weapon the talent applies to. Obviously, this will typically be the biggest gun they're lugging around, which is appropriate considering where the talent is coming from. You could always add a stipulation that it can only apply to weapons larger than a sidearm; that seems to be in keeping with the spirit of the talent if not the actual wording.

Being Burly means that you are bigger with a wider base and lower center of gravity. You know how to use your strength and extra size to your advantage. This is a whole body condition not just having strong hands or arms. So the talent should apply to the weapon of your choice whether in you hands, on your back, or slung on your hip. You are a big dude and it makes it easier to carry big stuff.

I would think a guy with multiple burly would have some in game problems fitting in an x-wing cockpit, squeezing into vents, reaching a scratch in the middle of his back. Porkins is a Y-wing fighter because he doesn't have a choice. I had a chance to get into a indy race car once and found out burly is a disadvantage in some things.

The way I read it, "any wielded or carried weapon" actually means any wielded or carried weapon , not any one wielded or carried weapon.

You don't have to pick and choose which weapon receives the benefit: any number of them can have their encumbrance reduced by 1 to a minimum of 1. If that were so, it would be spelled out in the rules like it is for so many other talents that specify one piece of gear.

Consider that the Jury Rigged talent can reduce the encumbrance rating of any one item by 2, among many other benefits. Is this ranked talent really meant to be a poor man's Jury Rigged, being so limited in scope and functionality, affecting a single weapon only slightly more effectively than Jury Rigged after spending 45 XP on all three ranks of the talent?

Consider a character with Burly 3 being able to carry around four blaster rifles at the same Enc. that most people take from one blaster rifle. This can get silly really fast.

I'd rather they just had Burly add its rank to the character's Brawn for the purposes of Encumbrance and Cumbersome. It would make it really simple.

Consider a character with Burly 3 being able to carry around four blaster rifles at the same Enc. that most people take from one blaster rifle. This can get silly really fast.

Speaking as the player of a Wookiee Maurauder/Heavy that has two ranks of Burly, I agree with you. I don’t carry that many weapons.

But the player of the Klatooinian Heavy of our group (with three ranks of Burly), would strongly disagree with you. He feels that he should be able to carry around whatever cannon-size weapons he can manage to carry.

Our GM would also agree with you, and he makes sure that the player for the Klatooinian is aware of the … social … costs of carrying around that many heavy weapons.

Consider a character with Burly 3 being able to carry around four blaster rifles at the same Enc. that most people take from one blaster rifle. This can get silly really fast.

I'd rather they just had Burly add its rank to the character's Brawn for the purposes of Encumbrance and Cumbersome. It would make it really simple.

A character carrying around half a dozen heavy weapons is silly no matter what the scenario But I don't think I have a problem with a lessening of mechanical disadvantages for it.

The way I read it, a very "burly" character (with a respectable 4 Brawn) could carry around 8 blaster rifles without it really slowing him down, and still have room for his vibroknife. He'd still have to find a place for them on his person, of course, and nevermind the crazy social/legal implications of these kinds of antics, but it might be useful to have a walking armory on occasion.

He'd still have to find a place for them on his person, of course

Well, that shouldn't be a problem for him, and that's precisely why it's a problem. A character with Burly 3 carries a blaster rifle around with the same difficulty that most characters have with a combat knife or frag grenade. Since we'd probably have no issue with most characters strapping half a dozen combat knives or frag grenades to their combat webbing, we need to accept that the Burly 3 guy can do the same with blaster rifles. This is because he somehow magically treats the weapon as having a lower Encumbrance for all purposes. BTW, this means he can hide those blaster rifles on his body as well as most people could hide combat knives or grenades too.

I would use the Expendables characters as a good example of the Burly talent. They have multiple weapons but not to the point where they have 3 mini-guns on their back.

I would say if it ISN'T done even on expendables it is silly to the point of being not acceptable. Expendables should be the bar for "this is silly enough to go into a situation with". Heck that is the point of those 3 movies.

So if you see a character in expendables carry a set of weapons you can mimic the "space version" of those weapons. If you do not see 3 mini-guns, 4 grenade launchers and a handful of combat knives hanging off the characters, then it is too stupid even for a campy movie, and should not be allowed in the game. Seems like a pretty simple limit.

Thank you for all the responses. I will use it to the point of the character reducing the encumberance and cumbersome rating of any wielded or carried weapon by ranks in Burly. If the player begins to abuse it then there might be an unfortunate accident may happen...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhe58xORWG0

He'd still have to find a place for them on his person, of course

Well, that shouldn't be a problem for him, and that's precisely why it's a problem. A character with Burly 3 carries a blaster rifle around with the same difficulty that most characters have with a combat knife or frag grenade.

....

BTW, this means he can hide those blaster rifles on his body as well as most people could hide combat knives or grenades too.

Hmm..I'll have to give this some thought.

There should definitely be some consideration of the physical space that multiple weapons take up.

BTW, this means he can hide those blaster rifles on his body as well as most people could hide combat knives or grenades too.

No, it doesn't. The weapons are just as big as before, this particular character just doesn't suffer from it when it comes to wielding the item.

Should you let a character stuff twenty rifles in his jacket without penalty? Probably not, but that's where GM discretion comes in. Honestly, I'd even grant Burly guys boost dice in hiding anything that would be reduced to less than one if the minimum of 1 didn't exist.






TL;DR
If you really have issues with the ability using RAW, have a talk about your limits and how you plan to interpret the ability with any players who are thinking about having their characters take it.

BTW, this means he can hide those blaster rifles on his body as well as most people could hide combat knives or grenades too.

No, it doesn't. The weapons are just as big as before, this particular character just doesn't suffer from it when it comes to wielding the item.

"Items with an encumbrance value of 1 or less can be hidden on a person easily. No roll is required for successful concealment unless a foe inspects the target up close—usually with a physical patdown. In the latter case, the searcher makes an Opposed Perception check against the target's Stealth. Add [boost] to the searcher for every encumbrance point over 1 of the hidden item." page 153 EoTECR

Since Burly reduces the encumbrance value of a weapon...well you can put two and two together.

Contrary to the popular belief of this thread so far Burly does not limit the effect to a single weapon nor only a weapon being wielded, sorry.

Right, the gear still has its original Encumberance Value. The "Rating" is reduced when wielded or carried by a Burly character, but that doesn't make the actual Value go down. So, Burly shouldn't make gear easier to conceal. Just makes the gear easier to be carried by the Burly guy.

Right, the gear still has its original Encumberance Value. The "Rating" is reduced when wielded or carried by a Burly character, but that doesn't make the actual Value go down. So, Burly shouldn't make gear easier to conceal. Just makes the gear easier to be carried by the Burly guy.

The text states that it reduces. You can interpret it however you like, but RAW doesn't limit the reduction to only for one or two purposes. It just reduces it.

If a burly character is in possession of the weapon the CQ and ER (EV technically) are reduced. Burly guy gives it to a non-burly character, the ability no longer applies. Being in a container is open to interpretation such as, are you still "carrying" it if it's in a backpack? I'd vote no. However, the rest is quite clear.

If you want to say that you need to have it in your hands to be carried then of course you're not going to allow concealing to be easier. However, again as stated, language and experience disagree with that.

EDIT:

If the point of your post was to argue the difference between "Rating" and "Value" then I'm sorry, but stop. They are the same thing.

Encumbrance Rating is only referenced in one place that I know of and that's in the description and ability boxes of Burly. It's quite obviously an instance of the writer tasked putting down the wrong term and copy pasting it for every reference.

If you want to argue it still, then you also have to accept that Burly does absolutely nothing, because weapons don't have any listed Encumbrance Rating. They only have a listed Encumbrance Value.

EDIT 2:

I want to make it clear that I actually hate the Burly ability as listed. Even from a cinematic standpoint it's a little nonsensical even if only limiting to what you wield alone. Yep, that guy can now wield a heavy blaster rifle like it's nothing but a knife...the knife however is still the same though...yeah he's weird like that. The whole thing needs a quick rewrite. It's just that I am a rule lawyer at heart and, in my humble opinion, RAW is extremely clear cut here.

However, that being said, I'm not going to get into a debate purely about interpretation unless someone is desperate for some guidance and needs multiple opinions. GMs can play however they like and houserule, interpret, disregard completely as they please.