I see how this can be seen as looking for a rule that doesn't need to be a rule. But I didn't know about armor encumbrance being reduced when worn, for example. I count it's full encumbrance.

In the absence of a rule, I'm happy to just use the logic of the experience of wearing a full combat kit. I'm probably more restrictive on myself because I know what physical limitations come from wearing and carrying full combat load and body armor. Even reducing the encumbrance seems a bit too much of an advantage to me, unrealistic like. Full combat kit is no joke. I've weighed more than double my body weight depending on what I had to carry, like if I had to hump a ruck on top of my patrol kit.

Granted, this is Star Wars, so I can see powered armor's encumbrance being reduced because it's an assistive device. After all, encumbrance skyrockets if it's powered down. Stands to reason it's reduced by 3 from its base enc. when powered.

It is my goal to keep it real, not to do anything that is only okay by technicality but just breaks the game. The fun is in the fact that there is real risk, not in putting on some god mode BS I get away with just because I lawyered my way into it.

Bottom line, I want to operate within the rules, and self restrict away anything that is technically within the rules but just provides stupid advantage that isn't realistic. However, I do not want to screw myself out of advantage from within the rules that actually does make sense. For example, saying a weapon with an enc 4 adds 4 enc to armor when it's mounted seems reasonable if the armor enc is reduced by 3 when worn. It's not super advantageous, it's not crippling to overall encumbrance. Happy compromise there, and it makes sense. Plus, there's modding weapons, the Stripped Down mod, or getting good rolls in crafting to reduce encumbrance, etc.

There's just some stuff that seems game breaking. Like in crafting, you can technically reduce encumbrance as much as you get the rolls to do it, to a minimum of 1. It isn't like soak where you can only select to increase soak by 1 once. There's no limit on reducing enc though, and I can't find anything that says you can't. I won't do that. I'll drop it a bit, sure, but if I have powered armor with 3 soak and 2 mounted weapons, I wouldn't mod it down to below 6 enc minimum, maybe even higher, just doesn't seem right or make sense.

12 hours ago, HVSD said:

Granted, this is Star Wars, so I can see powered armo  r's encumbrance being reduced because it's an assistive device. After all, encumbrance skyrockets if it's powered down.  Stands to reason it's reduced by 3 from its base enc. when powered. 

Encumbrance is more than weight, it's also bulkiness and general unweildly-ness. Try carrying around your IOTV, kit, weapon, etc. Now think of the difference if you just wear it. Carrying around an IOTV is more difficult that wearing it, that's why the encumbrance is reduced by 3 when you put it on.

No a non-military example, think about carrying around a bulky or large jacket while you're indoors doing stuff. You put it on to go outside and now things are easier to manage which the game models by reducing encumbrance by 3.

Hm, so you're saying that as an example, a backpack that's full of kit doesn't change its mass, but somehow is easier to carry due to the way it is carried. Makes sense for armor too. Since we don't really have rules that are this granular, it's not a stretch to reduce the Encumbrance value (or Cumbersome value if the weapon has such) within reason. I doubt dropping a point of either is going to break the game and while it's not technically RAW, the devs purposefully leave some blanks lest the rule book be a mile wide. We are encouraged to solve these sorts of problems.

Personally I probably wouldn't allow cumbersome weapons to be armor mounted, unless they have appropriate mods to reduce cumbersome to zero. Seems to me they'd keep getting caught on things like doors!