Spellcraft hear a spell's verbal component

[zaarbuc]

This has probably been covered before but a quick search did not yield any results.

I am GM'ing a game, the enemy spellcaster is currently invisible but the party can clearly hear the verbal components of a spell being cast. I call for spellcraft checks to identify the spell then check the Spellcraft description only to discover:

"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."

Obviously the party cannot "clearly see the spell as it is being cast" but I could have swore a spell could be identified based on the verbal components, so I check the 3.5 SRD and sure enough "Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.)

This seems like a major omission on Paizo's part. I understand the two systems are different but IMHO the verbal competent would be at least as telling. To give an (perhaps poor) example would it be easier to identify a levitation spell by "Wingardium Leviosa" or a 'swish and flick'? (I know, I want to punch myself for that example.) I understand in the Pathfinder universe two different spellcasters may use different verbal (and/or somatic) components to accomplish the same result but to me that is part of what the spellcraft check is for.

Does this have anything to do with rolling Spot and Listen into Perception? (Still doesn't seem to explain it.) Has this been errata'ed somewhere? Are there any other FAQ's dealing with this that I missed? In any case, I think I will house rule to allow it, perhaps with a penalty.

[Blymurkla]

Yeah, this seems like an omission. I mean, what if your deaf? The wording implies you could still identify spells without somatic components!

I would house-rule it. Maybe give a -2 or -4 penalty when identifying a spell that has a verbal or somatic component that you can't »access« while identifying the spell and disallowing identifications of spells where you can't »access« either the verbal or somatic component (perhaps because the spell has neither).

[DM_Blake]

I would not only house-rule applying spellcraft to the verbal component, I'm inclined to say that many spells, most spells in fact, are visible as they are being cast - swirling lights, colors, and other magical stuff, along with audible sounds of crackling energy and sizzling mana (whatever that means). Just look at the artwork around all the books. When spellcasters are doing their thing, there's a light show to go with the casting even before the spell is actually brought into existence.

The caster being invisible might not even change that - he's just an invisible gap in his light show.

Is that RAW? Let's just say it isn't not RAW.

[wraithstrike]

May as well press the FAQ button. The book is not clear on seeing a spell.

[Ascalaphus]

A somewhat extreme way of reading it is that while the caster isn't visible, the spell is. Casting a spell while invisible is a way to give away your location.