A character who sleeps in medium or heavy armor is automatically fatigued the next day. He takes a –2 penalty on Str and Dex and can't charge or run. Sleeping in light armor does not cause fatigue.

With mithral, you treat armour as "one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations." Would these "other limitations" include the penalty for sleeping in medium armour?


Although it is not phrased explicitly as a "limitation", I think it is reasonable that the fatigue penalties are waived for sleeping in medium Mithral armour.

A few class abilities only work if character is wearing Light or no armour. These seem to be clearly "limitations" and definitely waived for a Mithral Breastplate.

I have generally counted the fatigue rule for sleeping in armour along with the skill and class abilities that are only allowed in Light or no armour.

It is a rare situational bonus anyway - an ambush against sleeping PCs, and preventing their use of armour might be a possibility, but if it is a common threat in an adventure, the players will figure out ways to to avoid it as much as they can.


I can't speak for pathfinder but can for D&D 3.5, if this question came up in my game I would allow it. This is because the precedent for it has already been set with the endurance feat which also allows a character to sleep in medium armor.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Whilst there is precedent for people sleeping in medium armor, there is still some reasoning to be desired here: sure, Endurance lets you do it, but does Mithral let you do it? The two are entirely separate game features, and one doesn't affect the other. The precedent helps, but its presence isn't reasoning on its own. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Apr 22 '14 at 5:29
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @JonathanHobbs This is true they are separate game features, however the rules are silent on the issue and so a definitive answer is impossible hence the default to judgement call and precedent. \$\endgroup\$ – Martek Apr 22 '14 at 6:05
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Please do not discuss in comments. Edit your answer instead to be more complete. \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton Apr 22 '14 at 6:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Martek Stating the rules are silent on the issue is worthwhile to include in this answer, since it acknowledges the reasoning gap and explains why it's there. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Apr 23 '14 at 12:31

I would approach this from more of a practical rather than a rules based approach. Do a google image search for breastplate and what what do you find? Big hard shells that are molded to the shape of a torso. According to the reading on Mithral it has the same hardness at half the weight of normal armor. If we were talking chain mail or maybe scale I think the argument could be made for relaxing the penalty. But in this case the wearer is still sleeping in a big hard shell that is going to prevent comfort and good restful sleep to a large degree.

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Tony, the question is clearly about the rules of a particular game, not about simulating realism. One could presumably modify the rules of Pathfinder to try to more closely simulate realism...but it would be a VERY major change to the game, and it clearly isn't what the poster is asking about. \$\endgroup\$ – Jeff Fry Apr 21 '14 at 19:48
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ -1: In D&D 3.x and derivatives thereof, unless you are prepared to rewrite the whole game from stem to stern, any approach that involves comparison to real-world physics should never be plan A. \$\endgroup\$ – Matthew Najmon Apr 21 '14 at 20:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.