Shooting a fireball through a murder hole


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Here's a fun mental exercise for all you savvy rules lawyers out there:

So there is a murder hole in the door (really just a small barred window) which is just large enough for me to stick my arm through it. I want to shoot a fireball through it, but the GM says I don't have line of effect to do so, per the rules from the Magic chapter of the Core rulebook. Apparently you need a square foot in order to qualify for line of effect.

I knew this already, but a fireball bead streaks out from one's pointing digit/appendage, right? So if my arm (or even my finger) will fit, then I can effectively shoot a fireball through the aperture (since it will basically be created on the other side of the barrier), no?

My GM says no, since the opening is not big enough to qualify for line of effect. According to him, even though I can fit my arm through it, my character's space is still technically on the wrong side of the barrier and so the rule still applies.

What do you guys think?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sticking your arm though the bars would interfere with somatic components sufficiently enough that you wouldn't be able to cast the spell while you hand is in the window. However, it would be feasible that if you are adjacent to the door, it could be a melee touch attack in place of a ranged touch to "hit" the opening.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
prd wrote:

A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must "hit" the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

Based on bolding I would say you should be good if you can fire through the hole aiming through should be no problem.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think your GM's position is technically sound.

He doesn't have to rule that way (i.e. he COULD choose to see it your way instead) but from a rules-lawyer perspective the "no line of effect" ruling can't be attacked on basis of "you COULD have chosen to be accommodating instead".

Personally, I'd probably allow spellcasting through a murderhole big enough to permit missile fire but it'd be invoking Rule Zero.

EDIT: Actually, if Talonhawk quoted the PRD correctly (and I don't suspect he's in error) I'd have to concur with what he said. Fireball appears to explicitly allow for a "loophole" in the Line-of-effect requirement exactly matching your context.


Sticking your arm through the hole may interfere with your somatic component. That's probably how I'd rule it: giving you some level of ASF.


Bloodrealm wrote:
Sticking your arm through the hole may interfere with your somatic component. That's probably how I'd rule it: giving you some level of ASF.

Some level of...???

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, I've dealt with this one before as a GM!

My ruling: No, you can't stick your arm through, that interferes with the components (without Still Spell, anyway). But you can make the ranged touch attack. I don't remember the AC of such things off hand, but let me think...that's probably effectively a Tiny creature, with a 0 Dex, so...I'd make it about AC 7? (10 + 2 Size - 5 Dex). I'd probably give a -1 on the roll per 10 feet away, too, but that's an off-the-cuff idea.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bitter lily wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Sticking your arm through the hole may interfere with your somatic component. That's probably how I'd rule it: giving you some level of ASF.
Some level of...???

Arcane Spell Failure


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:

Hey, I've dealt with this one before as a GM!

My ruling: No, you can't stick your arm through, that interferes with the components (without Still Spell, anyway). But you can make the ranged touch attack. I don't remember the AC of such things off hand, but let me think...that's probably effectively a Tiny creature, with a 0 Dex, so...I'd make it about AC 7? (10 + 2 Size - 5 Dex). I'd probably give a -1 on the roll per 10 feet away, too, but that's an off-the-cuff idea.

Actually, the rules for shooting through a little gap like an arrow slit or the like are in the Cover mechanics, if I remember correctly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah this issue is addressed right in the spells description, and addressed well imo.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Cydeth wrote:

Hey, I've dealt with this one before as a GM!

My ruling: No, you can't stick your arm through, that interferes with the components (without Still Spell, anyway). But you can make the ranged touch attack. I don't remember the AC of such things off hand, but let me think...that's probably effectively a Tiny creature, with a 0 Dex, so...I'd make it about AC 7? (10 + 2 Size - 5 Dex). I'd probably give a -1 on the roll per 10 feet away, too, but that's an off-the-cuff idea.

Actually, the rules for shooting through a little gap like an arrow slit or the like are in the Cover mechanics, if I remember correctly.

*shrugs* Entirely possible! I didn't bother running in to check it. But if it's about a foot across, I'd rule it's either a tiny object, or diminutive, since I can't remember the exact space that each takes. Probably the latter, come to think of it, and it's not moving, so...yeah. I think mine might not be perfect, but I think it's fair. It's been years since I had to make a ruling on it, though!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, went to check the PRD, and the Cover section. Here's what it has to say about basic cover and improved cover.

PRD wrote:


To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

Improved Cover: In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.

So, based on this, if the area would have Cover, I'd expect the AC of the opening to be 9 (10 - 5 Dex + 4 cover), or 13 (10 - 5 Dex + 8 cover). So my initial, 'gut' ruling was actually more generous to the players. *shrugs* Anyway, that's how I'd do it, based on the rules I've seen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB, Magic wrote:
Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

I would be ok with putting your other hand through the murder hole. By doing so you would no longer be able to see through it, so spell would go off at the end of your hand. You would take damage from the blast.


I don't think you can stick your arm through for two reasons.

1) interferes with the somatic component. If you're sticking your hand through the hole, you're essentially wearing the door and I'm sure that a door has a quite high arcane spell failure chance. In addition, the attack roll to "hit" a small opening is part of the casting of the spell itself, so I don't you can cast the spell THEN poke your arm through and cast the spell.

2) if your arm is blocking your view, you no longer have line of sight.

So basically, you can shoot the fireball, but you have to hit the AC of the hole and you dang better hope you don't miss.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Cydeth wrote:

Okay, went to check the PRD, and the Cover section. Here's what it has to say about basic cover and improved cover.

PRD wrote:


To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

Improved Cover: In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.

So, based on this, if the area would have Cover, I'd expect the AC of the opening to be 9 (10 - 5 Dex + 4 cover), or 13 (10 - 5 Dex + 8 cover). So my initial, 'gut' ruling was actually more generous to the players. *shrugs* Anyway, that's how I'd do it, based on the rules I've seen.

Don't forget the size bonus to AC, if the hole is particularly small.


As an aside, I recall this exact scenario coming up in The Temple of Elemental Evil novel by Thomas M. Reid. The only memorable part of an otherwise forgettable book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Why couldn't I perform the somatic component with one hand, while launching the bead from the other? Also, why would I have to roll to hit the hole when my pointing digit is already past the obstacle?


Ravingdork wrote:
Why couldn't I perform the somatic component with one hand, while launching the bead from the other? Also, why would I have to roll to hit the hole when my pointing digit is already past the obstacle?

The aforementioned line of sight being blocked by your arm.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

David knott 242 wrote:


Don't forget the size bonus to AC, if the hole is particularly small.

Why would it get both the Cover Bonus (granted to creatures behind it, as you're trying to shoot past the object) and the size bonus for being small? It seems like that'd be trying to target the same thing twice. For instance, if I was trying to make a ranged touch attack on the wall behind the arrow slit, the wall has an AC of 5, with a +8 bonus due to cover. This should be the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I recommend trying it with a stilled fireball so these somatic component arguments become moot. And turn invisible first so you can see through your arm to aim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You'd think that people knowing how the laws of physics work in their universe would specifically remember to make the slits too small for that sort of thing.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think your arm would block line of sight. Murderholes are big enough to shoot arrows through or pour boiling pitch out of, that's big enough too stick one hand through and keep line of sight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
I don't think your arm would block line of sight. Murderholes are big enough to shoot arrows through or pour boiling pitch out of, that's big enough too stick one hand through and keep line of sight.
Ravingdork wrote:
So there is a murder hole in the door (really just a small barred window) which is just large enough for me to stick my arm through it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Cydeth wrote:

Okay, went to check the PRD, and the Cover section. Here's what it has to say about basic cover and improved cover.

PRD wrote:


To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.

Improved Cover: In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.

So, based on this, if the area would have Cover, I'd expect the AC of the opening to be 9 (10 - 5 Dex + 4 cover), or 13 (10 - 5 Dex + 8 cover). So my initial, 'gut' ruling was actually more generous to the players. *shrugs* Anyway, that's how I'd do it, based on the rules I've seen.

Don't forget the size bonus to AC, if the hole is particularly small.

You wouldn't be targeting the hole, you are targeting a square behind it. It's size determining the cover bonus - although to be fair if it's big enough that you're only considering a +4 cover bonus you'd probably be at the point of not needing a roll.

AC13 (10-5+8)

Also if you stick your arm though, your arm wouldn't block line of effect (line of sight for spells) so your arm being in the way shouldn't be an issue as long as you peeked first and can define where you want to hit "120' slightly to the left".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Line of effect is from you to the target so putting your arm in there does not remove that.* You are still in the square you are in, and the target is where the target(target space) is, however as quoted from the fireball spell you are allowed you to try to shoot into the hole.

*Your limbs do not determine where you actually are. That is why you can't ready an attack on a limb without the strikeback feat.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You'd think that people knowing how the laws of physics work in their universe would specifically remember to make the slits too small for that sort of thing.

I could also see them made specifically large enough to allow magic. Mages like improved cover too.

I think castles and ships used in Pathfinder tend to be severely flawed as they tend to be based on historic models with little thought of the perils faced in a high fantasy world. A thread discussing what features good castles would include, or how are all the ocean vessels not sunk by greedy aquatic creatures when most of the NPC ships in Skulls and Shackles can't defend the bottom of there ship could be fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Random question, slightly off topic, but so I understand, it seems to be a given that people are using 10 as the base AC for the target square, but isn't it AC 5 to hit an unoccupied square?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Conjoy wrote:
Random question, slightly off topic, but so I understand, it seems to be a given that people are using 10 as the base AC for the target square, but isn't it AC 5 to hit an unoccupied square?

Base AC always starts at 10. Hitting a square is AC 5 because, being an immobile target, the square has an effective Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier) which is where the AC 5 to hit a square comes from (10 base, -5 Dex).

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
I don't think your arm would block line of sight. Murderholes are big enough to shoot arrows through or pour boiling pitch out of, that's big enough too stick one hand through and keep line of sight.
Ravingdork wrote:
So there is a murder hole in the door (really just a small barred window) which is just large enough for me to stick my arm through it.

If the murder hole is big enough to shoot arrows through without visibility penalties, it should be big enough to stick your finger through and shoot a fireball.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also wouldn't a barred window have more than one "hole"?


When I GM situations like this, I ask my player the following:

"I'll allow it, but understand that if this interpretation becomes the norm for our table, then expect your enemies to use the same tactics against you in the future. Imagine a half dozen spell casters on the other side of a barrier casting nasty spells at you through 6" square holes in said barrier. If you're cool with facing something like that, I'll be happy to let you cast your fireball through that hole. If you don't want to face such a tactic in the future, then we'll adjudicate that such casting is normally impossible."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So every time the players come up with a tactic you don't like you simply threaten to use it against them amp'd up to 11 to discourage it?


I think you need to find a new gm with common sense


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
So every time the players come up with a tactic you don't like you simply threaten to use it against them amp'd up to 11 to discourage it?

Sorry, but that's a stupid interpretation.

My point is that literally everything the players can come up with, the bad guys can come up with, too. I allow the players to determine the level of tactical lethality they want in the campaign.

Does the party want to have "scry and fry" the campaign? Fine, if they do it, then they need to be prepared for the tactic to be used against them. If they don't use it, I'll honor that contract and not use it against them.

Do they want to pull out the Explosive Runes mega-bomb? Fine, but their wizard isn't the only person in the world to have thought of that; they need to be prepared for someone to use it against them.

I've had a player who lobbied for Improved Critical to stack with Keen. He changed his mind the first time the party ran into an opponent with the same combination a few levels later.

The rules and all their interpretations that the table runs under apply to both the party and the enemies. Often times, players will only consider the benefit that he/she will experience in the current situation when lobbying for one interpretation or another. I try to point out how that interpretation can also work against them, and then let them decide if they want that interpretation to be part of the game. Honestly, it may or may not ever come up. There's no guarantee that an enemy will ever make use of that interpretation. But, they might. I let the players decide whether or not they want to deal with it.

In the example above, I gave a worst case scenario. However, it is a reasonable tactic for a wizard academy or temple to use as a defensive measure against attack, if such casting is allowed. The party may or may not ever run into such a situation. I just want them to consider the possibility and decide if the advantage they gain now is worth the chance that it will be used against them in the future.

Then, I play it going forward however the group decides.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samish Lakefinder wrote:


I could also see them made specifically large enough to allow magic. Mages like improved cover too.

Since mages have a very limited number of spells you'd want some sort of open/close mechanism for when the wizard was ready to shoot the fireball at the besiegers rather than a built in "kill me" vulnerability into the system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shooting fireball beads through a small hole is a valid strategy, and the text of the spell specifically calls out that it can be done.

The AC would be as others have mentioned, AC 5 to hit a square +8 for improved cover.

If we're assuming a level 5 Wizard lobbing his daily fireball, he'd have about a 60% chance of success to hit that touch AC with his BAB and an average Dexterity score. Not exactly game-breaking. If we're higher level, there's plenty of better spells to spend a standard action on.

If you really want to screw with your player, next time have a sheet of permanently invisible iron in the way. All of a sudden your fireball explodes in your face.


RD, I'm curious which side of the door you're on. Are people supposed to be doing the murdering from your side, or the other side?


If you're targeting something as small as an arrow slit, then I don't know where the cover bonus is coming from. It's more appropriate to use the bonus from the size category. Having a cover bonus doesn't even make sense, because you're targeting the opening, not the creature or square.

If we're going by the rules for Damaging Objects, the AC is 10 +8 size -5 dex with an additional -2 for being an inanimate object, making it 11, not 13.

If you can stick your arm through it though, I would say it's diminutive, making its AC 7.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Spell rules supersede general rules: the spell clearly says what you need to do.

--》 ranged touch to hit the opening

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Firing (or spellcasting) through a small opening several meters away or through a small opening adjacent to you (i. e. on the border of your square) is different.

I would allow spellcasting or delivery of effects through a reasonably large hole if you are adjacent to it. 6 inch by 6 inch seem a bit small, BTW, unless you are using spells like eyebite, but 9" for 6" seem reasonable.
The guy on the other side, if not adjacent,would have more problems targeting you.

That is essentially how arrowslits work. Note that medieval arrowslits had an alcove behind them, so that the guy behind them had the space to move a bit and shift his angle of fire and cover more than a very narrow area.

Basic security against spellcasting for a castle:
- never get the guy in the arrowslit/spellslit being back lighted. If he is in a dark area and the guy attacking it is in a bright area he is almost invisible for spell that target creatures/items.
The guy with darkwision will still be able to target him.
- that alcove behind the slit: make it deeper, adding sidewalls behind it. That way a burst or spread spell that get in will not affect the guys behind the adjacent slits.
- crenelations are nice, but get a roof (actually a lot of medieval walls had a wooden structure above and around the crenelations, but it lasted for a short time when the siege machines started firing). There is too much stuff that can attack from the air in D&D/Pathfinder.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Basic security against spellcasting for a castle:

- never get the guy in the arrowslit/spellslit being back lighted. If he is in a dark area and the guy attacking it is in a bright area he is almost invisible for spell that target creatures/items.
The guy with darkwision will still be able to target him.
- that alcove behind the slit: make it deeper, adding sidewalls behind it. That way a burst or spread spell that get in will not affect the guys behind the adjacent slits.
- crenelations are nice, but get a roof (actually a lot of medieval walls had a wooden structure above and around the crenelations, but it lasted for a short time when the siege machines started firing). There is too much stuff that can attack from the air in D&D/Pathfinder.

Nice work! Thanks for the ideas.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Remember, I'm not targeting the hole, as my arm is already past it; I'm targeting whatever is on the other side.

The point of contention is how to adjudicate the rules with that in mind. Also most barred windows have more than one gap. If my arm can fit through one, I should be able to easily see out of another.

What's more, a lot of you seem to be getting line of sight and line of effect mixed up. I asked about the latter. Line of sight really shouldn't enter the equation.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Ravingdork, roll the ranged touch, please. Or cast a targeted spell that doesn't have a clause about small openings and fiery beads exploding you to a crisp in your jail cell.


If you don't want to use the ranged touch attack version, I'd probably let you stick your arm through the hole. But I'd also make you provoke AoO for doing so.

Also, line of sight is kind of relevant if you're trying to target a particular place with your exploding ball of magical fire.


fretgod99 wrote:

If you don't want to use the ranged touch attack version, I'd probably let you stick your arm through the hole. But I'd also make you provoke AoO for doing so.

Also, line of sight is kind of relevant if you're trying to target a particular place with your exploding ball of magical fire.

I do have to admit, while I'm sympathetic to the concept Ravingdork posed, it made me think of the prototypical Dad's reaction to the kid who sticks his arm or (worse) head out of the car window:

"You stick that out the window, you're going to get it chopped off!"


BigNorseWolf wrote:
You'd think that people knowing how the laws of physics work in their universe would specifically remember to make the slits too small for that sort of thing.

Ahhh, the myth of super abundant casters. One in a thousand are characters. One in a thousand characters can be casters. That's why they all go to the inn. The only reason a party contains both a paladin and a necromancer is because they were the only spellcaster who was available.


fretgod99 wrote:

If you don't want to use the ranged touch attack version, I'd probably let you stick your arm through the hole. But I'd also make you provoke AoO for doing so.

Also, line of sight is kind of relevant if you're trying to target a particular place with your exploding ball of magical fire.

I don't think it is. I can cast a fireball in darkness 100' 'thataway' without seeing where I'm aiming. Sure, it may hit something before it reaches the designated range, but I don't have to see the trajectory to send it.


Yes, you can put your arm through the hole and shoot a Fireball, but don't go complaining if you lose your hand to a Trap.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Goth Guru wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You'd think that people knowing how the laws of physics work in their universe would specifically remember to make the slits too small for that sort of thing.
Ahhh, the myth of super abundant casters. One in a thousand are characters. One in a thousand characters can be casters. That's why they all go to the inn. The only reason a party contains both a paladin and a necromancer is because they were the only spellcaster who was available.

How big is your usual army? More than a thousand?

If one vehicle in a thousand is a tank, you don't defend your palace against the Volkswagen beetle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
What do you guys think?

It's a slippery slope.

Line-of-effect was given definition for a reason. Presumably, to create a framework that makes it easy to impartially judge when and how a creature can be attacked. It's a simplified model of reality, as is most of the game, but the purpose is clear.

By gaming the system, sticking your arm through a hole that is explicitly too small to grant LoS, you are trying to work against the rules' purpose.

Were this allowed, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and you should expect bad guys to start shooting arrows at you though holes too small to allow you to return fire, and similar shenanigans.

Basically, once you are permitted to work around the rules, the rules change, and that won't be in your favor long-term. Even if you start asking "well, what if I have Still Spell," you're just running against the grain of the rules. This isn't an area where the rules are silent, or where they leave room for creative solutions. This is an area where you aren't intended to attack through a wall, or a mostly-wall.

The simplicity of the simulation can't handle this detailed a "but in reality I could" situation. It's not meant to.

1 to 50 of 123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Shooting a fireball through a murder hole All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.