1/10th with good packing makes things more confusing given that means a well-packed rocket launcher would fit, and 40 well packed thermal detonators would fit, but 5 not carefully boxed won't fit. The packing makes sense when you get to a pallet scale for things of certain densities... but overall?

Yeah, there’s lots of stuff with regards to encumbrance that can appear goofy, especially if you get into certain edge conditions.

IMO, this is where the GM and the players need to apply their common sense, and work out between them what will apply in their game system.

I mean, if you apply the 1:10 ratio of encumbrance for packing, does that mean that a pallet of ten well-packed 3PO units can be carried just as easily as a single 3PO unit by itself?

10 well packed jawas fit into a TIE just fine!

Two not on a pallet? FORGET IT!

Every time my characters need to transport a large number of Jawas in a TIE Fighter they just pack them up in crates, it happens all the time.

We get our calculators out and sit around comparing encumbrance thresholds, it's an awesome way to spend 3 or 4 hours every other week!

Once, Larry was even able to fit an extra holdout blaster into the TIE! It was awesome... man, good times. We still talk about that.

You'd normally only be able to tightly pack five jawas in there before there's trouble, but luckily they Blend.

If we take things from the theoretical (why can I only fit 4 thermal detonators in a TIE fighter) to the practical ("I get into the cramped interior of the TIE fighter and toss my 4 thermal detonators into the small space behind me") we might start to get a sense of why things are the way they are. Would you want a bunch of thermal detonators banging around in that confined space? Securely stow them, and it's both safer and more efficient: you can fit more of them in.

We could talk design intent: TIEs are designed as short-range fighters. They aren't equipped with hyperdrives, they have no internal atmosphere. Why in the world would they include any significant cargo space? "Encumbrance Threshold 4" basically means "no room for much of anything."

Taken in another light, 4 encumbrance is kinda like a carry-on for an airliner. You can't really fit a banana box in there AND fly the thing, but you could maybe take a small-ish piece of hand luggage.

So...

Example 1: You could "waste the space" and just throw a blaster rifle into the limited stowage space. It would be "full," even though it's not being used efficiently.

Example 2: Unless you dismantle a rocket launcher and stow it efficiently, it just ain't gonna fit inside a TIE fighter.

Example 3: If you wanted to bring a small case full of thermal detonators, say a dozen-or-so of them strapped securely into a carrying case, then why not? Drop that slim case in the same space as would fit a blaster rifle.

Example 4: In the case of a backpack, yes you could definitely "increase the encumbrance" of the TIE fighter because what you're doing is bringing something into the TIE fighter that is small and efficiently hold several items that would be very awkward to try and store separately. So maybe the backpack is holding up to 3 encumbrance's worth of items, but dropping it into the TIE only actually takes up 1 encumbrance.

At any rate, once you reach the "encumbrance threshold" of the TIE, it's "full." If you try to stash more stuff in, what happens? You're putting things down by your feet, maybe trying to wedge them into corners or behind panels. When you start doing this, I would start increasing the difficulty of your Piloting checks, since if that stuff comes loose while you're trying to fly, you're gonna have a hell of a time trying to control the fighter AND manage floating debris. That seems like a decent analog for a character exceeding their encumbrance threshold.

As evidenced here:

"Don't crowd me kid!"

This should probably be handled on a case-by-case basis. An over-stuffed X-Wing is going to be treated different than, say, an over-stuffed YT-1300. It means different things for different ships. (an image came unbidden to mind of an X-Wing pilot trying to fly in combat with a couple dozen plush stuffed animals in the cockpit)

Finally, practically speaking, why are you trying to load up a TIE fighter with cargo in the first place? What is the reason? It should be easy to adjudicate if you're in game and trying to specifically do something.

If we take things from the theoretical (why can I only fit 4 thermal detonators in a TIE fighter) to the practical ("I get into the cramped interior of the TIE fighter and toss my 4 thermal detonators into the small space behind me") we might start to get a sense of why things are the way they are. Would you want a bunch of thermal detonators banging around in that confined space? Securely stow them, and it's both safer and more efficient: you can fit more of them in.

We could talk design intent: TIEs are designed as short-range fighters. They aren't equipped with hyperdrives, they have no internal atmosphere. Why in the world would they include any significant cargo space? "Encumbrance Threshold 4" basically means "no room for much of anything."

Taken in another light, 4 encumbrance is kinda like a carry-on for an airliner. You can't really fit a banana box in there AND fly the thing, but you could maybe take a small-ish piece of hand luggage.

IMHO, the Tie Fighter is one of the ships for which the encumbrance limit that is listed in the books make sense. To me, it simply means that this is a starfighter absolutely not meant to carry stuff. Of course you can drop a light repeating blaster loose in the cockpit, but as you said this is unwieldy if not dangerous.

However I can't figure why a lot of freighters have values below 100. I know, they are "light" freighters, but this doesn't seem to make sense.

This was the topic of an entire thread over in the EotE forum. The TL;DR is it has more to do with securing and safety (of both the ship and your other cargo) than it does with volume or weight. It's also generally taken as referring to the space in the cargo hold. Not including the the closet in each person's room, hiding stuff under the bed, etc.

If we take things from the theoretical (why can I only fit 4 thermal detonators in a TIE fighter) to the practical ("I get into the cramped interior of the TIE fighter and toss my 4 thermal detonators into the small space behind me") we might start to get a sense of why things are the way they are. Would you want a bunch of thermal detonators banging around in that confined space? Securely stow them, and it's both safer and more efficient: you can fit more of them in.

We could talk design intent: TIEs are designed as short-range fighters. They aren't equipped with hyperdrives, they have no internal atmosphere. Why in the world would they include any significant cargo space? "Encumbrance Threshold 4" basically means "no room for much of anything."

Taken in another light, 4 encumbrance is kinda like a carry-on for an airliner. You can't really fit a banana box in there AND fly the thing, but you could maybe take a small-ish piece of hand luggage.

IMHO, the Tie Fighter is one of the ships for which the encumbrance limit that is listed in the books make sense. To me, it simply means that this is a starfighter absolutely not meant to carry stuff. Of course you can drop a light repeating blaster loose in the cockpit, but as you said this is unwieldy if not dangerous.

However I can't figure why a lot of freighters have values below 100. I know, they are "light" freighters, but this doesn't seem to make sense.

I'd say that it depends on the storage methods in question. If you just toss a bunch of blaster weapons on board, then more than 20-25 or so in your hold would mean that the storage method becomes inefficient. Take the time to stack them in racks, bags, crates, or even just bundle them together somehow, and you can fit (and sort through) many more items. But if you've got more than a couple dozen loose blaster rifles rolling around in your cargo hold, it can get messy.

Kinda like my 4 year old's room. He's got a lot of toys. When they're all put away, his room looks nearly empty and clean. But when he's gotten several toys out it feels almost out of control in there.

If you've ever heard your mom say, "I can't even see the floor in your bedroom!" Then maybe you can understand what the encumbrance rules on ships are about.

Except people aren't limited to placing things on one plain. Scattering blasters all over the floor may be dangerous, but if I had a bunch of effigies made of straw I could pack them pretty high and tight.

May I direct your attention to the packaging and boxing rules, which use a rule of thumb of 1/5 to 1/10 encumbrance. Thus, by packing everything in a nice survival bag, the 10 encumbrance in a X-wing could carry up to 100 encumbrance worth of cargo. More than enough for the survival gear we see Luke take out, plus extra.

I remember coming across this rule before, but I can't find it now that I'm looking for it. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Ya it was a pain to find when our group was looking for it. Also it still doesn't fix the fact that an arm load of weapons (or really anything) can't fit in a freighter RAW. It's actually a little more ridiculous that they suddenly fit once you put them in an even bigger case.

As a new GM I almost lost the players faith in the system when we went over that.

Its worth noting that there is no rule that says that the Encumberance Rating of a ship is the maximum you can put in there.

Except people aren't limited to placing things on one plain. Scattering blasters all over the floor may be dangerous, but if I had a bunch of effigies made of straw I could pack them pretty high and tight.

Yes, but then their encumbrance would be lessened, wouldn't it?

Its worth noting that there is no rule that says that the Encumberance Rating of a ship is the maximum you can put in there.

Agreed, but there's also no rule that says much of anything about the encumbrance rating of a ship at all. We don't even know if that's in addition to the pilot, or if it's just "space in the glovebox", or even what happens when you go over the ratings. We also don't have anything covering towing and precious little when it comes to hangar space either...

Ya it was a pain to find when our group was looking for it. Also it still doesn't fix the fact that an arm load of weapons (or really anything) can't fit in a freighter RAW. It's actually a little more ridiculous that they suddenly fit once you put them in an even bigger case.

As a new GM I almost lost the players faith in the system when we went over that.

If something sounds too ridiculous to be true, maybe it is.

The problem with this above interpretation of the rules is that it simply isn't correct. Nowhere in the rules does it say an armload of weapons can't fit in a freighter. Freighters can obviously carry way more than several humans can carry.

What is 100 encumbrance? If an absolutely massive human maxes out at around 11 encumbrance threshold, and becomes over-encumbered at 17, then 100 is so far out of reach of one person that you'd need at least 6 or 7 exceptionally strong individuals to even move an object of 100 encumbrance. You would also need 6 or 7 individuals to efficiently move a couple dozen loose blaster rifles: not necessarily because of weight, but just because of the sheet awkwardness of the task. Comparatively, you stick those 24 blaster rifles in a nice imperial-standard-issue crate, and two physically-fit individuals can manage the task of moving it without much trouble at all.

Episode 44 of the Order 66 Podcast, round about 1 hour and 4 minutes is where they start talking about encumbrance capacity. Getting some thoughts from the designer could be enlightening.

About the TIE in Rebels. I feel like it should be pointed out that it never makes it into space.

Whether it actually could or is too overloaded is anybody's guess.

About the TIE in Rebels. I feel like it should be pointed out that it never makes it into space.

Whether it actually could or is too overloaded is anybody's guess.

If they had flown into space, they would probably both have died due to lack of a pressurized cockpit

About the TIE in Rebels. I feel like it should be pointed out that it never makes it into space.

Whether it actually could or is too overloaded is anybody's guess.

If they had flown into space, they would probably both have died due to lack of a pressurized cockpit

I'm not certain that the cockpit is unpressurized. If this were the case, transition to/from atmosphere would be problematic. I do believe that there are no atmospheric processors, so oxygen and carbon dioxide levels are going to become a problem for most lifeforms even if loss of pressure is not.

I'm not certain that the cockpit is unpressurized. If this were the case, transition to/from atmosphere would be problematic. I do believe that there are no atmospheric processors, so oxygen and carbon dioxide levels are going to become a problem for most lifeforms even if loss of pressure is not.

If it was unpressurized, then you’d have to go through an airlock system when getting into one while getting into one from a large Capital ship in space.

It’s not an open cockpit, like aircraft from WW-I. It’s not a closed cockpit, like most aircraft from WW-II. It’s not like a modern airliner, that is only pressurized to a certain altitude, while flying somewhat higher in the atmosphere.

As a vehicle that goes into pretty hard vacuum, it has to be able to withstand everything from full atmospheric-level pressurization inside and out to no pressurization at all on the exterior of the craft. Any leak in a small craft like that would be the death of anyone inside of it, if it had to fly through a toxic atmosphere in order to land somewhere.

So, the pilot suit inside of a TIE has to provide its own oxygen and be capable of sustaining the life of the pilot for brief periods of time in a hard vacuum, and the vehicle itself would be fully capable of sealing an atmosphere in or out, but there wouldn’t be any extra atmospheric processors inside the craft. So, the amount of life-sustaining gas that you have available to you to breathe would be limited to what is inside the craft at the start of the flight, plus whatever little additional that the suit would have built-in.

After all, it’s designed for short-duration trips that might last a few hours, not long sorties that might go on for days.

Vac suits are bulky and hot. I prefer magic headphones.

Protecting pilots from the space since 1983.

I think awayputurwpn was refering to the fact that they were flying around with the door open. That was a bad episode by the way, perhaps the worst in the first season and I usually like filler episodes...

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt, Dante! But no, I was making no such clever reference. I just posted too quickly, without refining my terminology. I should've said "lack of life support." But I suppose if I had, then we wouldn't have had all this lovely education.*

In any case, end result is pretty much the same. You fly a TIE in vacuum without a life-support suit, you die :-P

*I just realized that that may have sounded sarcastic. It wasn't meant to be.

The "normal physics" of pressurization and our understanding of atmospheric containment don't apply in a galaxy far, far away... (IMHO)

Because TIEs make noise in space. ;-) And have to bank and turn like an atmospheric craft...

Why? Because... STAR WARS...

...baby.

The "normal physics" of pressurization and our understanding of atmospheric containment don't apply in a galaxy far, far away... (IMHO)

Because TIEs make noise in space. ;-) And have to bank and turn like an atmospheric craft...

Why? Because... STAR WARS...

...baby.

Any occurance of the laws of physics being obeyed in Star Wars is kind of like instances of historical accuracy in the movie 300...

It's a happy accident, and shouldn't be expected to occur on a regular basis.

(an image came unbidden to mind of an X-Wing pilot trying to fly in combat with a couple dozen plush stuffed animals in the cockpit)

Tangentially related: