Circumstance bonus the circumstance being that you're invisible. it probably won't stack with any other visually based improvement to your stealth score.
Untyped. If it had a type it would say in the rules. This is true for all bonuses. CRB page 148 has no type listed in the description. CRB page 266 makes it clear it's an untyped bonus since no type is listed.
There are a few other stealth bonuses that say they don't stack with invisibility, but by default it is untyped and stacks with everything.
Circumstance Bonus
Circumstance bonuses arise from specific conditional factors affecting the task at hand. Circumstance bonuses stack with other circumstance bonuses unless they arise from essentially the same source, in which case they do not stack.
being invisible to hide sounds like the Ur example of a conditional factor affecting the task at hand.
If it’s a typed bonus it has to say it’s a typed bonus in the write up. Invisibility is untyped. The above language is to explain to GMs why the designers usually gave a given type to a given bonus, not guidance to go classify every untyped bonus in the game.
Why I asked -
In the description of Indivisibility it would be Untyped since it does not give a type...but, there's a number of places in Core where it states all bonuses from this effect is this type of bonus. Then in the detailed descriptions of detailed items it just gives the Plus. Toolkits are a prime example of this. As Core states all Toolkits give a circumstance bonus but in the toolkits themselves they just say a +2 to +4 bonus.
Circumstance Bonus
Circumstance bonuses arise from specific conditional factors affecting the task at hand. Circumstance bonuses stack with other circumstance bonuses unless they arise from essentially the same source, in which case they do not stack.
Where does it say that some circumstance bonuses can stack?
Thought same type bonuses did not stack.
In the description of circumstance bonuses.
When circumstance bonuses stack its not really the same bonus stacking, its two different circumstance bonus from two fundamentally different things stacking. Circumstance is more of a catagory of bonuses than one bonus type.
You can't for example, cast two invisibility spells on yourself for double the bonus or carry 5 climbing kits for a +20 climb bonus, but if you need to look up something about Ysoki physiology you might have a +4 circumstance bonus from the library chip and a +2 circumstance bonus from being a ysoki.
So there's no fundamental difference between a circumstance bonus and an untyped bonus thats not going to work with some other bonuses.
Why I asked -
In the description of Indivisibility it would be Untyped since it does not give a type...but, there's a number of places in Core where it states all bonuses from this effect is this type of bonus.
Citations would be helpful
My opinion: You are creating words in the rules where they do not exist. If it says something is a +4 bonus, then it's an untyped bonus. It's as simple as that.
There are a couple reasons I see it this way. First, because that's what the text actually says. Second, if you don't read the rules this way, then you're going to constantly have to guess at the designer's intentions rather than accepting what they've written. Third, players and the GM need to be able to see the rules the same way, and the easiest way to do that is to go by what's actually written.
Could it be a typo? Sure. But anything could be. Until there's errata, I'd go by what's written.
Third, players and the GM need to be able to see the rules the same way, and the easiest way to do that is to go by what's actually written.
reading is an active thing that you have to do. Using this paradigm of rules interpretation, and only this paradigm, leads to the biggest and most frequent disparities between what different players reading the same thing different ways expect. Along with the biggest gaps in power between whats intended and whats interpreted.
Third, players and the GM need to be able to see the rules the same way, and the easiest way to do that is to go by what's actually written.reading is an active thing that you have to do.
Right, and some people are unavoidably bad at it but can’t see that about themselves.
This is a pretty on point example
Dealing with Unseen Creatures
Source Starfinder Core Rulebook pg. 261
If you are unaware of a creature, aware of a creature’s presence, or aware of a creature’s location, that creature is considered to be “unseen” for you. A stationary unseen creature has a +40 bonus to Stealth checks, but this bonus is reduced to +20 if the unseen creature moves (and these bonuses are negated for potential observers with blindsense). An unseen creature benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance) against attacks. In addition, you are considered flat-footed against an unseen creature’s attacks.
By reading invisibility as an untyped bonus,(or any bonus that doesn't list a type as an untyped bonus) an invisible creature in the darkness is twice as hard to spot as a visible creature in the darkness. Probably not how its supposed to work out, and its pretty plain the invisible and in the dark conditions are supposed to be the same (not something that stacks)
Incorrect.
Invisibility doesn't have a bonus itself. It makes you... well... invisible. Probably making you unseen and per pg 261, gives you the bonus. Darkness would do the same thing. You're just unseen - you can't be "unseen" twice so there's no stacking issue.
If there were I would agree - that would be pretty silly.
Incorrect.
Invisibility doesn't have a bonus itself.
Invisibility and Hiding
Source Starfinder Core Rulebook pg. 148If you are invisible or benefit from total concealment, you gain a +40 bonus to your Stealth check as long as you remain immobile. You are considered immobile if it is your turn and you have not yet moved or if you have not moved since the start of your last turn. If you are invisible but not immobile, you instead gain a +20 bonus to your Stealth check.
Now, that is definitely the same thing as the bonus for not being seen, but that's the entire point of circumstance bonuses: you can't double dip on the same circumstance just like you can't double dip on two competence bonuses. But you can double up on different circumstances (say, being invisible and having picked especially thick woods as an ambush spot)
Sorry BigNorseWolf - what I meant was that the spell itself doesn't talk about a bonus. It makes you unseen. For the sake of argument, let's say it grants you the "unseen" condition relative to the ones who can't see you.
You're invisible: you're unseen.
You're in thick woods: you're unseen.
You're both: you're still unseen. There's no stacking issue because you are just unseen, not doubly unseen.
It sounds like we're saying the same thing.
It sounds like we're saying the same thing.
A circumstance bonus with the circumstance being they can't see you and an untyped they can't see you bonus that won't work with any other they can't see you bonus are functionally the same thing. The circumstance bonus just has better (some) guidelines about when they will or won't stack (when they're from basically the same circumstance) and a stronger rules argument against stacking.
Any circumstance bonus to stealth is going to be a they can't see you bonus... kind of the point to stealth. But I think it would be harder to make out the predator in his cloaking field in the middle of a jungle than say, the pitchers mount of wriggly field, because parts of him are completely hidden by the plants and the irregular background makes the cloaking field less obvious. But which circumstance bonuses will or won't stack are by design a gray area.
Stealth in Starfinder requires a FAQ of its own.