How much harder would it be to identify a spell as it is being cast for a character that can't see or hear (but not both) the spellcaster? Let's pretend that the spell has both a somatic and a verbal component.
Does any rule cover this? I'm considering giving a penalty of -5 on the spellcraft check, do you think this is reasonable?
well, considering the fact that you don't have to be a caster of that type to be able to identify it ( a druid could Identify a wizard spell) I'm not so sure there is any specific limitation on it. IF the character is blind and there is no somatic component, if the character is deaf and the opponent happens to be using silent spell?
There are multiple nuances of each and every spell and any number of a combination of those can be used to tell the observer what that particular spell is.
In this case you are probably just house ruling something and over intellectualizing it.
In any event, if the character was blind, I might have him make a perception check to 1) realize that's not the voice of one of his companions casting and 2) the general location/direction of the opponent casting.
If the spell had no verbal component he couldn't ID the spell at all.
If the character is deaf, Id have him make a perception check to even notice the baddie was casting, IF he failed the check, he wouldn't even get a chance to ID the spell because he didn't notice it was happening until it was too late.
Alternatively if there was some reason the deaf character couldn't miss the fact that the baddie was casting (hes been looking at him all along, locked in a duel with him for several rounds, he's the only baddie that the group has been fighting, he's a 50 foot long dragon.,, etc, then forgo the perception check, as it's obvious the player would be looking at the baddie.
I don't know of any specific rules. A blinded or deafened character takes a -4 penalty to opposed perception checks. So, that might be reasonable. In which case following the same logic, a deafened character would automatically fail verbal only spells and a blinded character would automatically fail somatic only spells.
Although note there is not normally a penalty applied if a spell is only verbal or only somatic, so an argument could be made you only need to see or hear it.
EDIT: I was on the right track. See the spellcraft skill: "Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors."
Although odd it says you must be able to clearly see the spell being cast. So, a strict rules-as-written interpretation would say a blinded character can't identify spells at all. But this would also suggest verbal only spells can't be identified either.
In fact, RAW state that you just can't identify a spell if you cannot clearly see the caster, and you incur the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance (CRB p106, under the Spellcraft Skill description). They say nothing about having to hear the spell or not. However, I think this rule is rather harsh, especially since it's really easy for a spellcaster to turn invisible.
I'm asking because the PCs are going to approach a Wizard living in a Tiny Hut (the spell) in the middle of nowhere (he can see the PCs, but they can't see him in return if they are outside the Tiny Hut), and he's going to greet them with a fireball if they come too close of his shelter, but I would like the PCs to be able to disperse just before the spellcasting is complete if they can successfully identify the spell with the right skill checks.
Although odd it says you must be able to clearly see the spell being cast. So, a strict rules-as-written interpretation would say a blinded character can't identify spells at all. But this would also suggest verbal only spells can't be identified either.
Not if you can see his leaps moving. Maybe there's also some other kind of visual effects involved, like smoke coming out of the spellcaster mouth or little sparks of energy around the caster. ;)
Not if you can see his leaps moving. Maybe there's also some other kind of visual effects involved, like smoke coming out of the spellcaster mouth or little sparks of energy around the caster. ;)
Yeah, I thought about that, there are all kinds of reasons we could think of, but I for one, use Rule Zero on these little absurdities. I'm sorry but I won't kowtow to the almighty Rules-As-Written when they involve gems like this. It's an easy fix, just substitute 'perceive' for 'see.' Makes so much better sense logically.