Curious about how you see you worlds.
When not adventuring, do your characters wander around town in full armor, with weapons, and kit, spells prepped and ready to go?
Are they always at the ready or do they go "off duty"?
Do people in the game world react differently to them when fully kitted up?
How do they secure their gear if it is not with them?
I have always imagined that PC between adventures have "downtime", where they get on with their lives. Of course when I have run campaigns in the past there is vey little downtime for my players, just enough for them to get into more trouble :)
Right, but if they are in town in a bar and a fight breaks out is it assumed they are in full armor - with all of there weapons and magic on them.
Personally I keep to columns of stats one for on the road - one for in town.
Just to maintain some semblance of reality, I usually make PCs remove weapons and armor upon entering a town. The Guard probably does not want armed adventurers running around, and no shop keeper wants that kind of heat either. Players who don't want to do that either disguise themselves, or stay out of town.
|
It also depends which town you're in...if you're in a lawless frontier town, I can see the inhabitants having a permanent sidearm, just like in the Old West, and having carte blanche to use them (in self-defence).
Of course, what constitutes self-defence is going to be the crux of any subsequent legal action, but most people (in that environment) would rather have the security of being able to defend themselves at the time, and argue their case later.
There will always be corrupt towns where one family or gang is able to avoid repurcussions for their actions, because they have the law in their pockets, or else there is no law.
Enter the world of protection rackets, blood feuds, vendettas, etc. In the eyes of the locals, any person not prepared to defend his life or property in such an environment does not deserve to keep either....
(PCs enter stage left; merry hell ensues...)
The characters in my campaign ended up owning an inn and spending upwards of 10k at 3rd level (they pooled their cash) to build a small underground vault equipped with traps and locks and bypasses.
as such, thats where they stored their swag as thousands of gps can get heavy.
And generally they tromped around town in spiked full plate courting maidens... I think im gonna have to revise that though, ty for making this post
there are no towns in my world only an endless dungeon filled full of stuff to kill so i dont have to worry about that
|
|
GGhhhaahh!, stupid message board ate my revised post, as Rhavin trumped me!
I'm not typing it again, but basically, I made reference to the Old West gunfighter Doc Holliday, who was forever involved in shooting people (the full number is subject to debate), but was never convicted, due to extenuating circumstances. Many assume he must have therefore been a lawman, or at least a deputy, but I believe that not to be the case. He was simply a dentist with a deathwish, believing he would be dead anyway from TB or alcholism...
I'm writing this at work, so feel free to correct any of the above.
It just goes to show, there's a historical precedent for the type of reckless behaviour carried out by most PCs...
|
I don't like the idea of stripping the characters of armor and weapons in a city because it isn't fair across the board. Arcanists can run around at maximum effectiveness but a fighter has to be severely restricted. I think it is a sucky situation if you play a melee specialist unless you have Casters wear a collar to restrict spell-casting in town. Just making laws to punish spell use is not enough. There are laws in most places against sticking an axe in someones neck but if a character needs to defend themselves it isn't fair that a Wizard is at full power while a fighter is at a severe deficit.
my 2
FH
|
|
As to whether carrying a weapon should affect people's attitude, yes, it probably should, but not necessarily always negatively.
In the lawless environment, carrying a weapon (and looking like you know how to use it) could very well promote respect, while not doing so (and holding radical ideas about 'pacifism' or 'negotiating') marks one out as an easy mark, a soft touch, a victim and/or a fool....
Boot Hill is full of fools who were flapping their gums when they should have been cocking their hammers!
I don't like the idea of stripping the characters of armor and weapons in a city because it isn't fair across the board. Arcanists can run around at maximum effectiveness but a fighter has to be severely restricted. I think it is a sucky situation if you play a melee specialist unless you have Casters wear a collar to restrict spell-casting in town. Just making laws to punish spell use is not enough. There are laws in most places against sticking an axe in someones neck but if a character needs to defend themselves it isn't fair that a Wizard is at full power while a fighter is at a severe deficit.
So fighters go dancing, or to hock their "acquisitions", or to mingle inconspicuously, in full plate, with sword, backup weapon, shield helm, bow, quiver, back pack with potions, rope (for securing villains), etc?
Must make it tough for them to pick up chicks.
In Europe, I am told - gentleman went about town with swords, daggers, but not armor. I think this was the general rule in fuedal Japan as well.
It doesn't seem that unfair to me - if the rules aren't fudged for casters - component requirements, the area of effects for spells, etc.
But thats me, I like putting characters in different situations, and play their characters rather than their gear.
I am all for you going with whatever works in your game.
|
|
Further to my post above, some cultures not only allow for weapons to be carried, but encourage and expect it.
Anyone with more knowledge, please feel free to correct me, but weren't samurai obliged to carry their daisho as a badge of office? And furthermore, were they not expected to reply to any insult or threat with lethal force?
In a prime example of 'use it or lose it', their society believed that any man unwilling to defend his honour, obviously has none to defend...a dilemma for many, who would find their respect for the sanctity of life misinterpreted as cowardice, and would become hermits to avoid the incessant challenges from fools wishing to gain a reputation...
|
|
I allow them to wear armor into town, especially as Snorter said, if it is a frontier town/not heavily patrolled by guards (like a Hommlet type town). If they are 'fresh in from the field' and want to get a drink before really starting down-time, I have no objection. In most cases, characters (both that I've played and DMed) are known to be adventurers and not realy part of the small-town community they are basing out of, so it's not like they're likely to blend with the local element that much.
The 'Rogues & Rangers leather wearing set' don't normally get too many looks, but hide armor or anything that clincks and rattles metalically will probably catch some ascance glances. Having an obvious weapon on your person might get some negative reactions, especially if its ostentatious like a great-axe or a blood and hair-matted warhammer, but a sheathed sword isn't likely to excite the population too badly.
|
|
I think full-plate would be a bit much but what about lesser armors. A breastplate wouldn't be very out of place. Chain shirt, splintmail, they all don't seem so out of place afterall they are "heroes". People probably did walk around with weapons on them in Europe and not wear armor, but what did knights wear in Medievil Europe. I would assume some type of lesser armor instead of Full plate. In renaissance period the rapier was more prolific and mobility was valued in a duel, hence no armor. But in Medievil times I would assume that a Knight or warrior would wear some type of armor even if it wasn't his Full battle dress plate. We need to separate "people" from knights and warriors.
Also it's a game and to punish one group of characters over another is not a fair practice. Like I said, if you can figure out a way to limit a crazed mage from "Fireballing" the marketplace, then sure you can limit the fighter from hacking up some uppity noble over some percieved slight. Seems to me that the Casters are way more dangerous then the melee combatants and would hurt way more innocents and do more property damage. 1 fireball = dozens of commoners dead. A crazed fighter will kill maybe 3-5 before the rest of the crowd runs in panic.
It is a fantasy game, not a simulation. The D&D world has evolved with magic and heroes since it's time began. Lets not try to apply to many "real world" restrictions to it. I have a rogue who would break any world record distance jump in our world. It is fantasy.
FH
I think full-plate would be a bit much but what about lesser armors. A breastplate wouldn't be very out of place. Chain shirt, splintmail, they all don't seem so out of place afterall they are "heroes". People probably did walk around with weapons on them in Europe and not wear armor, but what did knights wear in Medievil Europe. I would assume some type of lesser armor instead of Full plate. In renaissance period the rapier was more prolific and mobility was valued in a duel, hence no armor. But in Medievil times I would assume that a Knight or warrior would wear some type of armor even if it wasn't his Full battle dress plate. We need to separate "people" from knights and warriors.
Also it's a game and to punish one group of characters over another is not a fair practice. Like I said, if you can figure out a way to limit a crazed mage from "Fireballing" the marketplace, then sure you can limit the fighter from hacking up some uppity noble over some percieved slight. Seems to me that the Casters are way more dangerous then the melee combatants and would hurt way more innocents and do more property damage. 1 fireball = dozens of commoners dead. A crazed fighter will kill maybe 3-5 before the rest of the crowd runs in panic.
It is a fantasy game, not a simulation. The D&D world has evolved with magic and heroes since it's time began. Lets not try to apply to many "real world" restrictions to it. I have a rogue who would break any world record distance jump in our world. It is fantasy.FH
Honestly, this is one of the reasons most of my players stick with lighter armor. That and my nasty habit of waking them up in the middle of the night...
When I ask myself this question, I try and think of The Lord of the Rings movies... Sometimes they wear armor in civilized areas, sometimes not.
A dwarven character in my campaign a few years back wanted to stay fully-armored while on a ship crossing the sea. I had the deck hands laugh at him saying "I ain't going to get you if you happen to fall overboard during a gale! (Arrrr!!)". So he decided to take off his armor, for safety reasons.
I usually let my players roam about cities fully-stocked when they are just passing through, or if they have a mission there. But in downtime, they leave their armors at home/the Inn. Think about it, you just can't go relax at the tavern in full-plate armor. It's just not comfortable...
Ultradan
In the games I run, I let the players keep there weapons and lesser forms of armor in most towns. When they visit the capitol city however, its nothing but one dagger of no more than 4 inches for any of them and the mages have to register and submit to either wearing an anti-magic collar or have an escort who can counter-cast all the mages spells. Further, druids are not allowed to shapeshift and clerics who are not registered at the local temple are prevented from spellcasting. The captain of the royal gaurd takes the safety of the king very seriously.
... and the mages have to register and submit to either wearing an anti-magic collar or have an escort who can counter-cast all the mages spells. Further, druids are not allowed to shapeshift and clerics who are not registered at the local temple are prevented from spellcasting.
So, umm, how do your guards enforce this? Spellcasters don't radiate magic unless they're currently casting spells, and there's not a single spellcasting class in the PHB that can't hide its nature from mundane detection -- Secret Page and Nystul's Magic Aura on the Wizard's Spellbook, and having the Druid select an animal companion appropriate to city life are about as complicated as it gets. As far as the guards are concerned under most circumstances, the Bard's just a musician, the Cleric's just more dedicated to his god than most folk, the Druid is a hobo with a dog, the Sorcerer is just some guy, and the Wizard's a geezer with a lot of books.
Yeah, I think about stuff like that -- especially the warding the spellbook thing. I only rarely enforce circumstances in which wearing armor would raise suspicion, or carrying weapons is taboo, largely because if I expect combat there are better ways to make for a challenging encounter than denying PCs their weapons and abilities, and if I don't the only reason to deny them is to keep them from unexpectedly killing an important NPC -- which they have every right to try, if they really think a situation warrants it.
I think that this question (and many more like it) are a great opportunity for the GM to throw some extra flavor into his campaign. Different towns are going to have different rules, depending on size, culture and whatnot. A small lawless town is likely to be a lot more lax than a large, well organized city. Likewise, carrying a large axe and wearing full plate in a dwarven city is going to get you a different reaction than if you try the same stunt in an elven city, or a human city or whatever. Perhaps an oppressive society only allows for guards to carry weapons, or perhaps every citizen is expected to carry a sword to help defend the city. Maybe weapons and armor are a status symbol to one culture and the bigger badder equipment you have the more respect you get.
Anyhow, my advice would be to change things up every now and again to help add some flavor to your campaign. On the other hand though, things like this should never be done as a means of messing over the players.
I guess I think too much gets made of this as a rule. I don't imagine townfolk flip out seeing a guy in armor, unless he acts like a bandit. People are used to armor and weapons, and would see a group of armed adventurers as either coming or going on some kind of journey. There might be a bit of hero worship even from the kids who run up to march next to them with a stick sword through the rope holding their pants up and the top of a barrel lashed to their arm. Some more irratable folks might huff and make a show of ignoring the strangers. Guards might ask questions, but really probably wouldn't be looking for a fight.
On the other hand, the thing about armor is it's dreadfully uncomfy and a character looking to relax will probably get out of it as soon as he can. So characters lounging around in an inn with their armor on and their aze propped against the table will be suspicious--even paranoid looking and certainly people will give them a wide berth. Here the guards might become more active in disuading them.
Thing is that weapons and armor are a lot more common in a setting like this. It's not like walking into a nice restaurant with SWAT armor and a shotgun would be today. We're a lot more uptight about guns nowadays. If anything armed folks would be seen as potential troublemakers, but more likely would be seen as a comforting sign that if something goes down that there's adventurers that can be called upon who are armed to help.
Note the same does not hold true if the PCs are nonstandard races. A half-ogre, hobgoblin, thri-kreen, and half-dragon walking into town fully armed might cause townsfolk to openly flee and guards to issue formal challenges. Not pretty that.
Much depends on context, and it's up to the DM to set the context. In some medieval societies, it was usual for certain members of society to carry a sword--it showed their social station as knights or nobles. In others, like medieval China, it was unusual for anyone to walk around armed in cities except soldiers--even the yamen runners (cops) mostly only carried a staff or club.
So, do you want the place to seem urbane and civilized? Not many people carry weapons except those with business or status to do so. Rustic and rural? Most people carry a hunting knife or staff, maybe a bow or other hunting weapon when leaving the village. (Most don't have much more). Is it more of a wild frontier area, or near a forest infested by bandits? Then most people will be armed.
In general, people don't wear heavy or medium armor around town if they're off duty--it's cumbersome and uncomfortable, and takes a long time to don. Unless the town is under siege or something. Even if there is a vendetta (Montagues vs. Capulets) or a crime wave, or occasional terrorism, people might carry a one-handed weapon at the belt or a staff in hand, wear chain shirt or leather armor, possibly a breastplate.
Traveling is a different story. Often it's easier to wear your armor than carry it, unless you have a pack animal, and when you're on the road there is always the possibility of encountering bandits, wild animals, or monsters except in the most settled and orderly regions. Even then, traveling is a good excuse to wear armor and carry weapons, unless the society (or the portion of it to which the PC belongs) is legally not allowed to bear arms of the type. Even still, most knights would not have ridden around in full plate--if you can afford such fancy armor, you can afford an extra pack animal and some servants, usually, and the stuff really is uncomfortable to wear. (Think about it, 50 lbs of steel, plus chain and multiple layers of leather and quilted padding. You're sweating inside all that while everyone else is at a comfortable temperature.)
We don't even like wearing business suits when we don't have to in this country. Would your fighter wear his plate armor to drink in the common room? And as DM, you can set the tone by noting what everyone else is wearing, and how strangely they look at you if you're inappropriately dressed.
Personally, I like the idea that a great many communities in settled areas would require peacebonds on weapons or permits to wear armor and such in town. It's a method of maintaining the peace. I am not doing it to punish players, but just because that's the view I have of my world. I wouldn't be overly strict with the rule, any more than any other in-game law the party has to observe. And, personally, I don't have a problem with mages being favored by these restrictions. Spellcaster have an edge because the big-bad warrior don't have his pigsticker anymore? Tough. Deal with it. If the mage does get unruly, the guards will be after him just the same.
I don't like the thought of "anti-magic" collars or anything like that. It feels far too heavy handed and simplly a meta-game method of reigning in players. How much would an item like that cost? And towns can afford these things to restrain all the wizards?
It's hard to find out who can cast spells and develop preventative measures. That's no reason not to take away the sword from the guy you can tell has one at a glance.
That said, such laws are only common in larger communities. Smaller towns and frontier locales might get you anything from an awkward look to no special consideration at all. It's just something that varies with the circumstances, and something that I enjoy playing around with as a part of world-development, not as a method of PC control.
But, all that's just how I like my games. You want to do something different? Go for it.
|
|
In a true medieval context, anyone not a noble would definately be a target for the law if they wandered about fully armed and armoured. It would be a challenge to the power of the king/queen and local lords. Also, peasants were often not a happy bunch so it is highly unlikely they would be allowed to be armed for reasons of civic order. On the other hand, eveyone carried a knife (for eating if nothing else) and as a consequence the murder rate was quite high in medieval times. As everyone carried a deadly weapon, brawls often turned fatal.
I have problems with the notion of people wandering round in full armour and the law enforcement agencies just shrugging - people don't walk down the street with an AK47 and not expect to be challenged (unless they live in areas like Iraq of Afghanistan). So while it would probably go in an unsettled area, it should be a no-no in a big, settled city, for example (why do you need a bastard sword and full plate to get the milk?). That said, of course, in a world where someone can strike you dead with a flick of a finger and a few incantations, maybe a guy in full armour isn't that intimidating. And, of course, maybe the War 1 guard doesn't really want to tangle with the 20th lvl fighter and tell him to take his armour off.
The role-playing reason is, of course, that restrictions on weapon and armour carrying penalises characters and means they cannot perform. I agree with that, so by and large I ignore the issue and let it go. But a campaign where these restrictions are in place could be interesting - probably an emphasis on skills, stealth, rogues and wizards in an urban environment.
I forgot to mention that I also don't tend to pull stuff on the party in town. I'm the type of person that believes in veering towards a more "realisitic" approach, and I feel that if one makes the party walk around with their gear stowed in the inn, they should not be at any serious risk of having it stolen, find themselves fighting in the street, etc. An occasional incident is fine and even interesting, but to treat it as a weak point of the party and then make a point to hit them under such circumstances is just bad policy on the DMs part, I feel.
Again, the typical D&D world is set in an area with no uniform rules or regulations. Some things, like currency, are glossed over to save a headache, but (at least for me), weapon laws (mainly, can you carry them in the street or not?) are a fairly straight forward issue that should vary by locale and in-game situation.
there are no towns in my world only an endless dungeon filled full of stuff to kill so i dont have to worry about that
Dungeon World!! Very cool!! Does this place have no sky? Is it totally all dungeons? Where do PCs go to get new supplies? Are there Dungeon towns behind some of the doors in this world? I could keep coming with the dumb questions all day, but all joking aside,I love the idea!!
|
I think full-plate would be a bit much but what about lesser armors. A breastplate wouldn't be very out of place. Chain shirt, splintmail, they all don't seem so out of place afterall they are "heroes". ...snip... It is fantasy.
FH
wholeheartedly agree. in fact, my current full-plate-wearing Knight/Cleric character bought a chain shirt as one of his first purchases. every night, in town or on the road, he'd be asking for assistance in getting out of his FP, and donning the chain shirt. he called them his "Pajamas".
of course, he's a career military type with a serious penchant for having a high AC.
when he could afford it, he got the following items:
Shiftweave outfit (Eberron item which "stores" up to 5 outfits in 1, and you can switch back and forth with a std. action) with Dress Uniform, Rekkenmark Uniform (Academy sub-formal, non-battle dress uniform), Karnnathi Battle Uniform (standard issue officer wear), Broken Blade Uniform (mercenary organization), and a Cold Weather Outfit (tailored cold weather version of Karnnathi Uniform.).
and he wore his chain shirt under these whenever he went out and about the people.
most recently, he acquired an "Arming Rod" (from Heroes of Battle) 15k gp, and it allows you to store a set of battle-gear (armor, shield, weapon) in the rod, and "don" it as a standard action.
now, he ALWAYS wears his chain-shirt, carrying shield, sword, backpack, and bag-of-holding, and the rod.
of course, he's also travelling with a Bone-Knight who's all but bolted into his spiked-bone-plate armor.
In my campaigns, outside of frontier towns or adventurer quarters, you will experience higher prices, less favorable NPC's, and outright hostility sometimes from the locals. after all, you're one of those dangerous, death-seeking adventurer types, and NO, i DON'T have a daughter, you miscreant!
-the hamster
and NO, i DON'T have a daughter, you miscreant!
-the hamster
Which raises the question, how do the tavern wenches react? Do chicks dig guys in full plate, or the rough and ready types who can survive with out it?
There was that notorious scene in Excalibur . . .
(And yes, our party paladin also carries a chain "nightshirt" to sleep in. At least when he's out in the backwoods or down in the dungeon.)
Dire cows, man.
(why do you need a bastard sword and full plate to get the milk?).
No no no - hellcows. :P
Go with peaceknots! Have the guards check that everyone that carries a weapon ties it with a knot that doesn't allow quick access. Have bows and crossbows unstrung and ensure that every now and then a guard patrol jumps a surprise visit on your PC's to check on their knots.
I mean, its easy enough for your PC's to overcome if they really want to, but on the other hand it does restrict them in some way.
As for spellcasters...well, remember the saying; "There's always a bigger fish!". If a player starts casting fireballs in the middle of the square, have the War Wizards(Spellsword Regiment in my campaign), or whoever would benefit from taking down rogue spellcasters go after them, put bounties on their head and let them know that this sort of behaviour will be punished even worse then a fighter taking down four or five commoners with his blade. It might be a bit harsh but my players know that if they break the law, the law will try to break them.
In my game, each culture and city has its own rules; the more civilized; the less weapons and armor a person is permitted to wear. Also, there are rules in many areas between nobles and commoners as to what weapons and length is permitted; so during downtime; most pcs in civilized areas wear only light armors; some require a permit or guild membership; while in more uncivilized areas they have their backs against the wall in full battle array at all times.
One possibility to keep the armour AND a certain low profile-the glamered armour property (DMG 219 I think). It changes the appearance of your armour to that of normal clothing and can be changed back as either a move action or a standard action. It isn't analogous to a +X bonus, so other magic armour properties won't need to be changed. The cost is only 2700 gp.
... and the mages have to register and submit to either wearing an anti-magic collar or have an escort who can counter-cast all the mages spells. Further, druids are not allowed to shapeshift and clerics who are not registered at the local temple are prevented from spellcasting.So, umm, how do your guards enforce this? Spellcasters don't radiate magic unless they're currently casting spells, and there's not a single spellcasting class in the PHB that can't hide its nature from mundane detection -- Secret Page and Nystul's Magic Aura on the Wizard's Spellbook, and having the Druid select an animal companion appropriate to city life are about as complicated as it gets. As far as the guards are concerned under most circumstances, the Bard's just a musician, the Cleric's just more dedicated to his god than most folk, the Druid is a hobo with a dog, the Sorcerer is just some guy, and the Wizard's a geezer with a lot of books.
Yeah, I think about stuff like that -- especially the warding the spellbook thing. I only rarely enforce circumstances in which wearing armor would raise suspicion, or carrying weapons is taboo, largely because if I expect combat there are better ways to make for a challenging encounter than denying PCs their weapons and abilities, and if I don't the only reason to deny them is to keep them from unexpectedly killing an important NPC -- which they have every right to try, if they really think a situation warrants it.
Of course it is possible to hide who and what you are;) But at the same time, the punishment for lying about it and then getting discovered is that much worse. And for a nice little twist, the king and the captain of the gaurd are both PC's, just in a different game. Also the captain of the gaurds,played by my wife, is in both of the games. which makes encounters with the PC's of the second game much more detailed and character driven rather than DM driven.
|
No no no - hellcows. :PDire cows, man.
(why do you need a bastard sword and full plate to get the milk?).
That's utterly insane.
Actually, I agree that the approach of restraining the characters in all ways is a bit heavy handed. It is an approach that I only reserve for the Capitol city of one kingdom in my world. In most instances peace-tying the weapon or similar measures are all that is needed. Sometimes some of the towns feel bows and greatswords are a bit much and ask you to leave the larger weapons and missile weapons at the inn.All in all, I vary the way npc's react to players carrying around all those weapons and armor.
As for the druid, what in the hell are you going to do to explain away that bear or that tiger to the city gaurds? Ain't happening.
Why would a bear or tiger come into a town; they are the druids friend but not at all tame and would surely be more than uncomforable in a city as should be the druid.
That's utterly insane.No no no - hellcows. :PDire cows, man.
(why do you need a bastard sword and full plate to get the milk?).
Utterly... or udderly?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
In my campaigns, adventuring parties are generally licensed or operate under a charter. As such, they operate under color of law and are able to bring more powerful weapons and armor into town than is allowed for the average person. This also gives them the authority to dispense frontier justice.
In my thieves guild campaign, the PCs were not chartered adventurers and had to live with those laws. Armor was prohibited as were weapons larger than a knife. Nobles were exempt from the weapon and armor prohibitions and certain areas of town were not as vigilante in enforcing the law. Wizards and other spellcasters were required to be registered with their local guild/church and have identification to that effect (a ring IIRC). Certain spells were flat out illegal, as were the components of those spells (assuming said components were not extremly common like eyelashes). Part of the fun of the campaign was working around these restrictions, including using glamored armor, bribing the guards, and having enough control over your territory that no one messed with you.
Utterly... or udderly?That's utterly insane.No no no - hellcows. :PDire cows, man.
(why do you need a bastard sword and full plate to get the milk?).
that is some evil cheese...
tog
I have players that are so paranoid that they have their charaters cast protective spells on themselves to go use the outhouse (Has something to do with one of them getting locked into one that was then set on fire!)
Something that is common in my world though is living symbiotic armors. These usually remain dormant until activated, taking a full round to cover the wearer. THere are also magical enhancments that will recall weapons and armor and put them in the right places.
As for what is appropriate, that depends on the setting. are adventures considered heros? or are they considered vigilanties?
Do they work with local law enforcement, or would they be considered criminals? It's really up to the DM. I have no problem with my PCs wearing armor 24-7 given how many times I've attacked them in the middle of the night. (If one out of every ten times you fell asleep someone hit you in the head with a brick, I bet you would start sleeping in a helmet.)
In the campaign I play in, we did get strange looks if we went around in full armor and with all our arms and such, but as players we just decided that our characters- nobles as far as the fighters and cleric were concerned- would leave most of our weapons in our rooms. My elven fighter/revised urban ranger took only his rapier and his fancy nobleman outfit when he went out trolling for rogues to find his man...so yes he looked conspicuous, but not as conspicuous if he was fully armored and carrying his Halberd- it just decreases the chances of getting mugged, which happened to him and he dispatched them with a vial of Alchemist's fire and his rapier. his ac wasn't 17 (we use armor as damage reduction) it was 14, but they never touched him.
In MY Game, the one I run, I haven't had the players really encounter the law yet, I'll probably have the walking arsenals get bothered by the City Watch for carrying their weapons in town, but in Manifest, I don't see a major law against walking around armed and armored, but they'd probably try to put some hold on that.
So far the only encounter with the law was between the cleric, npc monk, npc wizard and sorceress and the local Town Guard, and I think I handled them well enough. I rolled a random Urban encounter that a shop was being robbed, naturally they ran down, well the npc monk ran down, and engaged the thieves...shortly the town guard and a group of dwarves noticed (but having forgotten the dwarves), but only the crossbowmen of the town guard doing anything to stop the thieves, the other 3 town guards ran, but only their normal movement rate, to the scene. Naturally, I had the crossbows pointed at the players after the thieves were put down and almost had the sorceress get a bolt before that happened. "Put down your weapons (mostly to the cleric)" "Heal the prisoners, cleric" and "stand still" if the party were the group of fighters rather than the spellcasters, things wouldn't have gone very well. It was a town with a lot of trading, and mercenaries weren't uncommon, so the thieves doing their thing and the town guard doing theirs while the dwarves started to do something to interfere, but as craftsmen...and seeing the town guard, held back, anyway someone intervening wasn't a complete surprise. When the sorceress tried to search the bodies of the thieves, crossbow trained on her, she was ordered to stand down.
I thought it was effective random encounter.
I will mostly leave such matters as personal disarmament to pc discretion.
Save when the PCs meet the king of Salkiria...only nobles will be allowed their weapon and not WEAPONs, their servants will be disarmed (luckily one of them, an NPC cleric doesn't need weapons, gave that sucker the monk's belt), and any and all people calling on the king for an audience will be disarmed before entering the anteroom.