Actually a +2 or -2 GM circumstance adjustment is stated quite early in the rules, and not having training in an relevant secondary skill, in this example, Perception, is certainly an important circumstance in my books. I never said anything directly about facing rules, simply about who one was paying attention to. If I had brought up facing, I would have been more likely to say that it simply wasn't possible if you weren't facing them; as it is, all I talked about was where the attention and focus of a character was as that will affect the ease of the process. As long as they have line of sight, they can always try, but just because they can potentially see something doesn't mean that they are automatically going to be paying attention to it, and since a standard action is only six seconds long, that's not long to both notice the casting and focus in on the details of the effects, especially since the specific non-component effects could potentially differ from caster to caster. Facing would be a different issue entirely and deal with whether it could be done or not; paying attention determines how difficult the task is when it is possible. The first is, as you say, getting into house rule territory; the second is more of interpreting the written rules.
Grenmeera, I am well aware of what Jason said, as that provided the baseline for my numbers for that particular penalty. Expanding it from -4 to -2 to -6 gives a bit more leverage in dealing with specific circumstances while recognizing where the devs fall on the subject.
By RAWiest RAWy-RAWRAW at least, you can identify spell-like abilities as they are being cast, with no penalty other than range, potential dm-imposed circumstance penalties and so on.
The main question I think is if this is one of those cases where the "works excactly like a spell" clause of the SLA rules apply or not.
Oh, and on the topic of ID'ing without components, for those that thought the rules a bit hard to understand, GrenMeera did an excellent analogy in the other thread:
A caster casting a spell = A caster petting a dog.
Petting is the verb, similarly to casting.
For all instances of spell, we will replace the noun dog.
A spell's components explain what you must do or possess to cast the spell.
A dog's components (this is the section of the book referring to a spell's description, and because the wording on this sounds odd, I will infer that this simply means that specific part of the spell's description. Essentially, I view this as a game term.) explain what you must do or possess to pet the dog.
Verbal component = "Nice doggy!"
Somatic component = The petting motion performed by the caster.
Material component = A doggy treat, or a brush perhaps.
You can apply metamagic feats to remove these, which basically means we can just stand there staring at the dog, and suddenly he's pet. He's happy, we're happy. This dog is now pet and I didn't even have to bend over to touch him.
You cast the spell, and there's (four legged, long nosed) spell looking back at you. The spell is there whether or not you said "Nice doggy".
Okay, so we're petting a dog? What's my point again?
Well, glad you asked, me!
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.
Okay, so:
Identifying a dog as it is being pet requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the dog as it is being pet, and this incurs...This helps us exemplify the fact that a spell (dog) is not the same as casting a spell (petting a dog).
So let's apply some metamagic feats! No more "Nice doggy" verbal component, no more petting motion, and no more doggy treat! Can we still see the dog?
Yes.
Now this is where things get tricky... let's translate this back into game terms. First, we'll make a pit-stop off at our verb. Try all of the above again, but remove "petting" and replace it with "creating". This gives us a stronger analogy without changing any of the logic. It's just... more Frankenweenie... which is grosser and harder to picture. We're now creating a dog, probably by sewing him up from all these dog parts we found laying around. The verbal component can be "It's ALIVE!", the somatic can be a stitching motion, and the materials can be thread. This new analogy helps show where all of our sticking point arguments come from.
So, the next question arises! When is there "dog"? We're now creating the dog, so do you have to finish before there is "dog"?
Well, considering that the counter-spelling requires a readied action that is completed before the actual action that spawned it, we could NEVER counter-spell unless there was "dog". It doesn't matter if you use the feats or not, you need "dog" to see "dog". This makes me surmise that the counter-spell rules must infer that there is "dog", even before the "creating" is completed. I guess all those organs and fur that we're patching together to create dog is considered dog.
Now comes the second point of argument! Some say there is no additional visual representation of "dog". We now have invisible dog that we are trying to create.
Unfortunately, invisible dog comes with the same fallacies. Even without using feats to create invisible dog, we need to see it to counter-spell it. So if we work under the assumption that there is no visual components, then once again, counter-spelling becomes impossible even without using the feats!
In order to make counter-spelling work even without the feats, we must be able to see the spell (no invisible dog), and it must exist before casting (partially created dog is still dog).
Yeah, weird analogy, but I think it simplifies a complex wordage issue.