I am generally not a fan of imposing armor restrictions on the characters because I tend to try and be very logical about the way laws would work.  If the social norm is that a chain shirt and a sword spells trouble, what about a fireball?  Or dominate person?  Or even charm person?  

Nor do I think that mages should all be part of some elite order able to ignore the whims of lesser peons, unless the Fighters are all knights and the rogues are all guildsmen (in which case it is a push and doesn't matter much).

So if I am going to let the warlock walk around without supervision, then the guys in armor are definitely not restricted because they are not what people will worry about.  In fact, heavy armor, as opposed to a heavy weapon, probably reassures people that you aren't a wizard.  The fact that you can put on this armor and (with a few exceptions, in a few system) reliably signal that you aren't able to unleash dark magic is actually a plus.  Because unless magic is rare, a fireball will kill a lot more people than a maniac with in armor who is punching people.  

Weapons, on the other hand, can be used by anyone and some casters use blades as a part of their magic.  Definitely frowned on in polite company, to the level that is above the average side arm for the person's rank.

Who said anything about letting magic get away without similar restrictions? In fact, I personally said I carry similar societal hostilities to spellcasters posturing openly. Spellcasters are in a similar boat; pose a threat, get the horns.

Cast a dangerous spell like fireball upon "a few harmless peons" because you can? OK, you kill a few attracting a shitload of attention, and now the rest of the hamlet is coming for your head. And they are sending their fastest runners spreading word like wildfire to nearby villages and the regional holders of power. You got a timer on your head, caster, soon your thumbs and tongue will belong to the regional power as your PC retires as slop boy.

If anything I run my settings with an even more lethal leash on spellcasting. No holder of power likes unexpected wild cards at its table. And small town locals are suspicious and insular enough to never let a stranger too far out of their eye.

Depends on the setting, the location in the setting, type of armor and a bunch of other variables.  

Wearing armor in the city can be impractical for a number of reasons, for example, it will prevent wounds, but you sure as hell aren't ever going to catch a thief, mugger or cultist chasing after them in full plate and shield.

Quote from: Votan;841754I am generally not a fan of imposing armor restrictions on the characters because I tend to try and be very logical about the way laws would work.  If the social norm is that a chain shirt and a sword spells trouble, what about a fireball?  Or dominate person?  Or even charm person?  

Nor do I think that mages should all be part of some elite order able to ignore the whims of lesser peons, unless the Fighters are all knights and the rogues are all guildsmen (in which case it is a push and doesn't matter much).

So if I am going to let the warlock walk around without supervision, then the guys in armor are definitely not restricted because they are not what people will worry about.  In fact, heavy armor, as opposed to a heavy weapon, probably reassures people that you aren't a wizard.  The fact that you can put on this armor and (with a few exceptions, in a few system) reliably signal that you aren't able to unleash dark magic is actually a plus.  Because unless magic is rare, a fireball will kill a lot more people than a maniac with in armor who is punching people.  

Weapons, on the other hand, can be used by anyone and some casters use blades as a part of their magic.  Definitely frowned on in polite company, to the level that is above the average side arm for the person's rank.

Well, good thing most of us who have thought through the restrictions on weapons (called the 'Rule of Reach' in much of my northern setting) also have the restrictions on magic figured out.  Magic, if anything, is policed more heavily.

And the OP did not mention D&D, so not eveery game has to balance stuff by making mages unable to wear armor.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;841766I let the computer crunch it out, since it takes no time these days.

Computers are great for some things. This isn't one of them. It took Arminius longer to write out the formula than it took to do the calculation in their head.

Speaking from the D&D perspective.

The characters who depend on heavy armor are not so overpowered that I would want to mess them up so gratuitously relative to mages and unarmored defense users and maybe even light armor wearers. I'm more sympathetic to weapon restrictions on game grounds, since the melee character is not quite as weakened by a restriction to smaller weapons. But you can carry a pretty honking big gun around where I live, openly or concealed, and we don't have a problem with random monsters decimating the local convenience store. (Nor did we when carrying such guns was not allowed.) The local authorities are going to be interested in mysterious, visibly competent strangers who sell wagon loads of looted goblin equipment and monster carcasses and then ask for directions to the nastiest dungeon around, no matter how they're equipped.

People rushing to say how restricted mages are in their towns are only putting lesser restrictions on the mages that could be put on armor wearers and over-sized weapon carriers: wait for them to do something bad and then drop the full weight of enforcement on them, rather than preemptively penalize them. (And that's ignoring the unanswered damage that casters could potentially do with Mind Blank, Greater Invisibility, Disguise Self, Subtle Spell and a host of other things.)

I don't want to turn my game into endless rounds of stalking where both sides try to catch their enemies with their armor off. Yes, wear your armor all the time and risk exhaustion and heat stroke and fungal infections and whatever other mundane hazard, because it's more real that way. Don't wear armor in town because it's not historical, unlike almost every other element of D&D, or because people might react negatively to your half-orc infernal pact warlock only for wearing light armor. I want a game of adventure where you risk death, not severe chafing, social embarrassment and discrimination in public accommodations.

And it's a magical world, and it's my world; my new house rule created this very moment is that armor proficiency lets you merge with your armor when there's no combat, like a Druid can merge with any equipment while Wild Shaped. It's not hidden; people still see you have armor if they could see it non-merged. And you have to drop your excess encumberance if you need the armor, but it comes out when needed for free. (Maybe even if you're surprised; there are enough benefits to surprise attacks already.) Characters who were asleep or even just resting when attacked won't have armor on; pretty much everyone else will. I'll let you know if it ruins my campaign.

Quote from: LordVreeg;841769Well, good thing most of us who have thought through the restrictions on weapons (called the 'Rule of Reach' in much of my northern setting) also have the restrictions on magic figured out.  Magic, if anything, is policed more heavily.

And the OP did not mention D&D, so not eveery game has to balance stuff by making mages unable to wear armor.

So, I admit my default was D&D.  But armor restrictions are not unique to D&D.  These limitations show up in other fantasy settings as well for example, Rolemaster (which puts the on clerics!) or GURPS (where the point buy favor low STR; if you look at GURPS wizards armor shows up for very high point buy characters). But Runequest or Mage: the Dark Ages would not have these restrictions.  

So, how do you police magic?

Quote from: rawma;841787Speaking from the D&D perspective.

The characters who depend on heavy armor are not so overpowered that I would want to mess them up so gratuitously relative to mages and unarmored defense users and maybe even light armor wearers. I'm more sympathetic to weapon restrictions on game grounds, since the melee character is not quite as weakened by a restriction to smaller weapons. But you can carry a pretty honking big gun around where I live, openly or concealed, and we don't have a problem with random monsters decimating the local convenience store. (Nor did we when carrying such guns was not allowed.) The local authorities are going to be interested in mysterious, visibly competent strangers who sell wagon loads of looted goblin equipment and monster carcasses and then ask for directions to the nastiest dungeon around, no matter how they're equipped.

People rushing to say how restricted mages are in their towns are only putting lesser restrictions on the mages that could be put on armor wearers and over-sized weapon carriers: wait for them to do something bad and then drop the full weight of enforcement on them, rather than preemptively penalize them. (And that's ignoring the unanswered damage that casters could potentially do with Mind Blank, Greater Invisibility, Disguise Self, Subtle Spell and a host of other things.)

I don't want to turn my game into endless rounds of stalking where both sides try to catch their enemies with their armor off. Yes, wear your armor all the time and risk exhaustion and heat stroke and fungal infections and whatever other mundane hazard, because it's more real that way. Don't wear armor in town because it's not historical, unlike almost every other element of D&D, or because people might react negatively to your half-orc infernal pact warlock only for wearing light armor. I want a game of adventure where you risk death, not severe chafing, social embarrassment and discrimination in public accommodations.

And it's a magical world, and it's my world; my new house rule created this very moment is that armor proficiency lets you merge with your armor when there's no combat, like a Druid can merge with any equipment while Wild Shaped. It's not hidden; people still see you have armor if they could see it non-merged. And you have to drop your excess encumberance if you need the armor, but it comes out when needed for free. (Maybe even if you're surprised; there are enough benefits to surprise attacks already.) Characters who were asleep or even just resting when attacked won't have armor on; pretty much everyone else will. I'll let you know if it ruins my campaign.

This shows an inherent problem with D&D and all it's clones, the more armoured you are, the less chance you'll ever get hit, should trouble come around.  AC is a bad mechanic, because it's the only scaling defense you have and if it gets lowered, you're in danger.

And let's face it, there are such things as Urban Adventures, which put the PC in the not so nice places in town.

However, in systems where armour is a Damage Reduction value, and characters have innate defensive 'skill' not tied to how much armour they hav on, I've not run into that problem above as often.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;841800This shows an inherent problem with D&D and all it's clones, the more armoured you are, the less chance you'll ever get hit, should trouble come around.  AC is a bad mechanic, because it's the only scaling defense you have and if it gets lowered, you're in danger.

And let's face it, there are such things as Urban Adventures, which put the PC in the not so nice places in town.

However, in systems where armour is a Damage Reduction value, and characters have innate defensive 'skill' not tied to how much armour they hav on, I've not run into that problem above as often.

It was a pretty big problem for The Fantasy Trip; damage pretty much always filtered through armor's damage reduction, so wearing armor was fairly crucial, and hit points didn't rise by a factor of 10 over a character's career. A character in plate armor could get hit by a lot of arrows and live, but would die from only a few without armor.

And D&D contains various forms of damage that aren't affected by armor (which has no effect on saving throws, still covering most damage spells, even in 5e).

Quote from: Votan;841797So, how do you police magic?

Immediately punch in the face anyone who starts making strange gestures and/or chanting in weird languages.

Culturally some societies may treat spell casting without permission like any other unjustified and potentially lethal attack. So people will react to the 'attacking' mage about the same as they would to a mundane person suddenly shooting people with a bow for no reason or running through a crowded marketplace hacking down people right and left with a sword.

Openly wearing armor is only appropriate in some genres and places. I could see wearing armor being common in some D&D games where monster attacks are common even in safe cities for example.

Even where its not appropriate , not  all armor is hard to conceal. A mail shirt , a padded jack or a   brigandine could easily be concealed much as a threat level 2a vest is today.  

It also possible to sleep in these if you don't mind the stench so jittery PC's might wear them most of the time.

I believe it's entirely a setting-dependent element. If you have encounter tables (or planned encounters) in a city that include "monsters" then anyone who could afford to wear armour would. If you have a fantasy police force in a thoroughly civilised city, maybe no-one wears armour.

Player character power plays a role, too. A band of heavily armed and armoured ruffians entering town might attract notice, but is there anyone who would take it on themselves to tell them "no"? Again, setting-dependent.

The following link goes to a video about "weapon & armour carrying when adventuring - advice for roleplaying games from history".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llPAuGy6XvQ

Quote from: Votan;841754I am generally not a fan of imposing armor restrictions on the characters because I tend to try and be very logical about the way laws would work.  If the social norm is that a chain shirt and a sword spells trouble, what about a fireball?  Or dominate person?  Or even charm person?  

Nor do I think that mages should all be part of some elite order able to ignore the whims of lesser peons, unless the Fighters are all knights and the rogues are all guildsmen (in which case it is a push and doesn't matter much).

So if I am going to let the warlock walk around without supervision, then the guys in armor are definitely not restricted because they are not what people will worry about.  In fact, heavy armor, as opposed to a heavy weapon, probably reassures people that you aren't a wizard.  The fact that you can put on this armor and (with a few exceptions, in a few system) reliably signal that you aren't able to unleash dark magic is actually a plus.  Because unless magic is rare, a fireball will kill a lot more people than a maniac with in armor who is punching people.  

Weapons, on the other hand, can be used by anyone and some casters use blades as a part of their magic.  Definitely frowned on in polite company, to the level that is above the average side arm for the person's rank.

Interesting. Never thought about it.

In my games, it depends on the setting and lawlessness. Most civilizations are not fan of armed people roaming around the streets.

Quote from: Vile;841845Player character power plays a role, too. A band of heavily armed and armoured ruffians entering town might attract notice, but is there anyone who would take it on themselves to tell them "no"? Again, setting-dependent.

In my game, the citizens of the polis. All of whom have armour, weapons, and regularly train with the above. Even with their entire retinue, the PCs would be outnumbered by a phalanx comprised of men who know each other and train together, fighting to defend their home.

But as I said, the gates are manned by the citizens, they're not getting through them armed and armoured in the first place. Not without starting that fight mentioned above.