At the end of the day, it says you simply have to "see" someone casting a spell, it doesnt matter "how" its cast, wether by spells or a spell-like ability, read the "Spellcraft" skill section, it does NOT distinguish any difference between the two.
An "invisible" character or one who is acting from a hidden location or is otherwise unseen cant have a Spellcraft test made against them since the skill entry clearly lists that you require to be able to SEE the spellcasting opponent, however that may accomplished.
Regardless if a spell requires components or not, it is back in 3.5 that it used to be based on witnessing verbal/somatic components, there is no text from 3.5 left over to suggest this is still the case - its no longer relevant, a spell being cast (regardless of how) is still a spell, and someone with Spellcraft can identify what that spell is.
Its purely simplified for smoother gaming, Spell-like Abilities are still spells, even if they are cast in a different way they act very much the same, still entitle you to spell resistance and whatnot. The fact it takes the same amount of time to cast whatever spell-like ability your using compared to the spell its casting further makes this credible.
At the end of the day, the RAW of "Spellcraft" says you get to identify any spell being cast that you can see (with no exceptions listed for spelllike abilities, staves or wands which all work differently but still produce spell effects), and Spell-Like Abilities are still "spells" at the end of the day, such as is listed in their description. The only factors that need be taken into account is that of visibility - standing there infront of someone using a spell-like ability entitles you to a Spellcraft roll, but if your invisible or hidden?, then no, you dont get the roll, just as you wouldnt against a hidden mage. Its all streamlined for ease of play at the end of the day.
First, identifying spell effects is under Knowledge(Arcana). Knowledge(Arcana) has all the DCs for identifying spell effects AFTER the spell is cast. Spellcraft is for identifying a spell BEFORE they are cast. Thus, spellcraft is still about identifying the components of the spell, not the visible effects of the magic. A mage making a throwing gesture at you while chanting "fire" in draconic a spellcraft check. Figuring out that the ball of fire heading for you is a fireball spell is knowledge(Arcana). The rules make a clear distinction between the two.
Second, if a spell has no verbal or somatic components, then all you see is someone who looks vaguely distracted. You might get a Sense Motive check to know they are distracted or if they just have some really bad gas. Spellcraft says you must see the spellcasting, but there is no spellcasting to be seen. There is just a person standing there looking distracted. 3.5 was very clear on this, PF still says you must see the spellcasting which doesn't contradict the 3.5 rules.
Third, if I accepted your view on these things, I could argue you don't need to witness the person casting the spell, just the magical effects in the area around the person. So I could argue that I still get a spellcraft roll against an invisible caster, because I can see the magic energy gathering around them or something similar. That is clearly not the intent of the spellcraft rules.
First, identifying spell effects is under Knowledge(Arcana). Knowledge(Arcana) has all the DCs for identifying spell effects AFTER the spell is cast. Spellcraft is for identifying a spell BEFORE they are cast. Thus, spellcraft is still about identifying the components of the spell, not the visible effects of the magic. A mage making a throwing gesture at you while chanting "fire" in draconic a spellcraft check. Figuring out that the ball of fire heading for you is a fireball spell is knowledge(Arcana). The rules make a clear distinction between the two.
Second, if a spell has no verbal or somatic components, then all you see is someone who looks vaguely distracted. You might get a Sense Motive check to know they are distracted or if they just have some really bad gas. Spellcraft says you must see the spellcasting, but there is no spellcasting to be seen. There is just a person standing there looking distracted. 3.5 was very clear on this, PF still says you must see the spellcasting which doesn't contradict the 3.5 rules.
Third, if I accepted your view on these things, I could argue you don't need to witness the person casting the spell, just the magical effects in the area around the person. So I could argue that I still get a spellcraft roll against an invisible caster, because I can see the magic energy gathering around them or something similar. That is clearly not the intent of the spellcraft rules.
If you choose to use it in this fashion (even though Spellcraft itself never states you need to see components of any sort being employed wether verbal, somantic and material) then all Wands, Staves, Scrolls and so forth should never entitle onlookers to a Spellcraft roll, and Spellcraft tests require you to be able to SEE your target, a hidden or invisible target is immune to having Spellcraft rolls made against whatever they are casting.
I'd appreciate it if you would point me to where in the whole Spellcraft writeup it is written under Spell-like Abilities that says it cannot be identified as normal. You'll find infact it says they can be counterspelled normally as normal spells do (see below) and may be dispelled in addition to this, it does NOT say you have to use Dispel Magic to counterspell Spelllike Abilities, it says you can do so normally.
And Counterspelling by its very definition requires you to be able to identify the spell being cast (regardless of how its done) and then cast a proper counterspell against the magic being used. If Spellike Abilties were NOT subject to counterspelling normally it would say so under the entry but it states it works normally.
But as it is written in the RAW, all Spell-like Abilities are still SPELLS, and therefore allow an onlooker to make a Spellcraft test. What your arguing is perhaps what 3.5 and 3.0 argued this to be but Pathfinder makes a VERY clear distinction about this
As of yet, I have seen no entry in the core rulebook or other Pathfinder books to suggest that Spelllike Abilities are immune to spellcraft tests. They're not, they work just like spells, save they dont need the messy components...
As for your query about the Knowledge rolls, that is something you may make to identify a spell that is in place OR to identify a spell that just targeted you, so you could rely on either method to identify any Spell-like Ability to detect what is coming at you. But you cannot make a Knowledge test to perform a Counterspell in ANY circmstance, it MUST be a Spellcraft roll.
Now reading what Counterspell says suggests you can very well indeed use Spellcraft... and read what it says about Spelllike Abilities too and you'll see why below.
Spell-like Abilities (Sp) (Page 554, Core Rulebook)
"Spell-like Abilities, as the name implies are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spelllike Abilities are subject to Spell Resistance and Dispel Magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as a Antimagic Field). Spelllike Abilities can be dispelled AND counterspelled as normal"Counterspells (Page 207 Core Rulebook)
"How Counterspells Work : To use a counterspell, you must select an opponent as the target of the counterspell. You do this by choosing to ready an action (see Combat on page 203). In doing so you elect to wait to complete your action until your opponent tries to cast a spell. You may still move at your normal speed, since Ready is a standard action. If the target of the counterspell tries to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level), this check is a free action. If the check succeeds you correctly identify the opponents spell and can attempt to counter it, if your check fails you cannot do any of these two things..."
You CANNOT use Knowledge (Arcana) to perform a Counterspell at all, it MUST be a Spellcraft roll, without exception. It is for this reason that you get Spellcraft rolls period against Spelllike Abilities or against a spell being cast in general, from a Wand or Staff, etc as long as your able to see the caster clearly.
If you choose to use it in this fashion (even though Spellcraft itself never states you need to see components of any sort being employed wether verbal, somantic and material) then all Wands, Staves, Scrolls and so forth should never entitle onlookers to a Spellcraft roll, and Spellcraft tests require you to be able to SEE your target, a hidden or invisible target is immune to having Spellcraft rolls made against whatever they are casting.
Wands and staves are spell trigger, thus you are not casting the spell in any way, form, or fashion. You are activating a magic item. Activating a spell trigger item is completely different from casting a spell. For starters, using a wand or staff does not provoke an attack of oppotunity. There is no DC listed for identifying a magic item that is being used, so spellcraft cannot be used for that function.
Scrolls are spell completion, which means you are performing the last part of the spell, so you could argue you might get a spellcraft roll, but since you are activating a magic item and not casting a spell, by the RAW, you shouldn't get spellcraft roll for scrolls either.
I'd appreciate it if you would point me to where in the whole Spellcraft writeup it is written under Spell-like Abilities that says it cannot be identified as normal.
If you show me where it states that the casting of spell like abilities can be clearly seen.
Identify Spell Being Cast: 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.
You'll find infact it says they can be counterspelled normally as normal spells do (see below) and may be dispelled in addition to this, it does NOT say you have to use Dispel Magic to counterspell Spelllike Abilities, it says you can do so normally.
Show me where it says using dispel magic to counter a spell is abnormal counterspelling. Using dispel magic as a counterspell is part of the counterspelling rules, and thus is normal counterspelling.
And Counterspelling by its very definition requires you to be able to identify the spell being cast (regardless of how its done) and then cast a proper counterspell against the magic being used. If Spellike Abilties were NOT subject to counterspelling normally it would say so under the entry but it states it works normally.
If counterspelling requires you to ID the spell, then why give an option to use if you fail to ID the spell? Ergo, counterspell doesn't require you to identify the spell.
But as it is written in the RAW, all Spell-like Abilities are still SPELLS, and therefore allow an onlooker to make a Spellcraft test. What your arguing is perhaps what 3.5 and 3.0 argued this to be but Pathfinder makes a VERY clear distinction about this
No, PF makes no distinction on this. PF uses the exact same DCs and wording as 3.5. Both PF and 3.5 list the DC for Identifying a spell being cast as 15 + spell level, no action required, no retry. 3.5 has an additional clarification that say you must observe verbal or somatic components. The PF SRD has NOTHING in is that overrides or negates that clarification. Unless you have something that says the PF version of spellcraft ignores the 3.5 clarification?
As of yet, I have seen no entry in the core rulebook or other Pathfinder books to suggest that Spelllike Abilities are immune to spellcraft tests. They're not, they work just like spells, save they dont need the messy components...
Nevermind that we are both in agreement that the messy components are how you identify the spell before it is cast. For spell-like abilities, there is nothing to see, thus the casting cannot be clearly seen as the rules require.
As for your query about the Knowledge rolls, that is something you may make to identify a spell that is in place OR to identify a spell that just targeted you, so you could rely on either method to identify any Spell-like Ability to detect what is coming at you. But you cannot make a Knowledge test to perform a Counterspell in ANY circmstance, it MUST be a Spellcraft roll.
Exactly my point. You said earlier that spellcraft identifies a spell by its obvious magical effects and gave your movie example of dispel magic, but that is clearly how Knowledge(Arcana) works.
Thus, spellcraft only works by identifying a spell before it is cast. Explain to me exactly how you can figure out that someone is specifically casting a fireball spell-like ability just by watching them stand there and concentrate. How would their concentration be different if they cast cure light wounds as a spell-like ability instead of fireball? In both cases, you have someone standing there concentrating with absolutely nothing to suggest what they are concentrating on.
Now reading what Counterspell says suggests you can very well indeed use Spellcraft... and read what it says about Spelllike Abilities too and you'll see whyYou CANNOT use Knowledge (Arcana) to perform a Counterspell at all, it MUST be a Spellcraft roll, without exception. It is for this reason that you get Spellcraft rolls period against Spelllike Abilities or against a spell being cast in general, from a Wand or Staff, etc as long as your able to see the caster clearly.
[sarcasm]Yes, you must identify a spell with spellcraft to counterspell without any exception, oh wait except this one.[/sarcasm]
Dispel Magic as a Counterspell
You can usually use dispel magic to counterspell another spell being cast without needing to identify the spell being cast. Dispel magic doesn't always work as a counterspell (see the spell description).
Spell-like abilities can be counterspelled and dispelled normally. Using dispel magic to counterspell is part of normal counterspelling and doesn't require you to identify the spell.
In 3.5 you'd have been absolutely right, but read Spellcraft, it NEVER mentions the need to see components being performed or used, only that the target is seen. This is a change from 3.5 to Pathfinder, was it intentional?...maybe, but theres another thread where this is going on in a debate and others have agreed that the change entails that characters can now indeed identify Spell-like Abilities. I am also beholden to point out that Pathfinder overrides 3.5 in every instance a feat, ability or skill is repeated, etc. And Spellcraft is no exception, PF's version overrides 3.5 and is designed to be used as written.
Spell-like Abiltiies & Identifying/Counterspelling
No offense was intended, I know how Spell-like Abilities functioned in 3.5 but it works differently now with regards to Spellcraft.
I implore you to read the Spellcraft description clearly in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, nowhere does it state you have to witness any components being used (as it did in the 3.5 description), only that you must be able to clearly see the character. In otherwords...you could STILL identify a Stilled/Silent spell as long as you could see it...was this intentional?, I cant say. But I can say that the change of how this the skill is written was deliberate since it is worded very differently, but PF overrides 3.5 when it comes to the text...what was 'ommited' in regards to the components was deliberate and in PF now no longer applies.
And "Dispel Magic" isnt the only listed means to Counterspell a Spell-like Ability, the very description of "Spellike Ability" says they can be counterspelled normally - reading Counterspell it says you make a Spellcraft test and NOT a Knowledge (Arcana) test to do so, no exceptions. It would not be considered to be "counterspelled normally" if you had to employ specific means such as Dispel Magic. Someone with a "Haste" spell for instance could counterspell someone with a "Slow" Spell-like Ability that tried to cast it, but your definition prevents that, they would have to use "Dispel Magic" and thereby that would be abnormal since it restricts HOW it is counterspelled
All I can suggest at the end of the day, realism aside, the game was streamlined for ease of play and less confusion in this area. I am not arguing that how can someone realistically identify a spell when all a character does is stand and stare at you...but thats how it works now in Pathfinder, its a change they made and nobody really understands it...all I was doing was pointing out this rule change
it NEVER mentions the need to see components being performed or used, only that the target is seen.
This is wrong. It doesn't state that you only need to see the target, it says that you must clearly see the spell as it is being cast. Not only the caster.
It doesn't say what constitutes as "clearly seeing the spell as it is being cast". It doesn't even say how a spell looks as it is being cast.
The spellcraft is irrelevant here, because you have to clearly see the spell.
The answer to the question:
"Can you see a spell without components?"
isn't
"Yes, because spellcraft won't work if you can't see he spell"
It might be that it should, for balance reasons, but by RAW it says nothing on the matter.