When you become invisible you can make a stealth check to hide.

[eamon]

Being invisible doesn't make you unheard nor make grant you the ability to avoid leaving plain old other traces. Nor does it affect the minds of your enemies and make them forget where you were.

If you move, you get to make a stealth check. This represents how quietly and tracelessly you do so. Being invisible does not silence a clunky suit of armor, so you can fail these checks - but really, being invisible is already so good, for many purposes, it's not worth bothering with the stealth check.

I don't think a bonus is a good idea; to hide in the first place you need total concealment (or superior cover) - invisibility is just one way of getting that. For instance, it should be easier to hide in darkness than when invisible since darkness does hide indirectly visible hints to your location - but darkness doesn't grant a bonus. Most other sources of total concealment are probably better, in fact.

This isn't as different from 3e as it seems; mostly terminology's changed. Previously, you'd still need to make move silently (and technically even hide checks with +20 IIRC) to avoid detection - it's just that now they've explicitly labelled the distinction between invisibility and invisibility+"undetectedness".

 

[Johs]

If you are invisible, nothing can see you, and you have the CA you want. Furthermore, you could "hide" and be "hidden" in which case the opponent's also are not aware of your location / not aware you are there at all.

 

[BlackSeed_Vash]

In 3.5, to spot a moving invisible target DC = target's Hide check +20. To spot an invisible target that is standing still is DC = target's Hide check +30. An invisible object, helpless creature or unliving creature (holding perfectly still) has a Spot DC of 40 + hide check.

 

[Starfox]

No, the DM could always require you to roll a Move Silently check vs. your opponent's Listen check in 3e.

This of one of the (few) places I feel Pathfinder fails - when they removed Move Silently and Listen skills, they didn't rewrite invisibility to match.

 

[Samloyal23]

This is stupid. If no one can see you, by definition you are in fact "hidden". It does not matter whether you are invisible, in the dark, or hiding in a bowl of rice waiting to pop a cap in someone's ass. Now, hidden things may be detected by sound or smell or touch. But that is a separate action and does not cause you to become visible.

 

[n00bdragon]

This is stupid. If no one can see you, by definition you are in fact "hidden". It does not matter whether you are invisible, in the dark, or hiding in a bowl of rice waiting to pop a cap in someone's ass. Now, hidden things may be detected by sound or smell or touch. But that is a separate action and does not cause you to become visible.

No one is suggesting that a successful perception check removes invisibility anymore than noticing someone hiding behind a wall removes their cover bonuses.

As someone above mentioned though, it's silly that your level of concealment has no effect on Stealth or Perception rolls but that's a weird problem with the way D&D silos combat and noncombat actions into two almost totally distinct rulesets and the weird way that skill checks can fly wildly out of proportion so that some characters can never fail certain checks while others can never pass the same check. So we get weird requirements like the need for total concealment to make Stealth checks but then don't actually give any bonuses for maintaining that total concealment. Hopefully 6e realizes the problems with this and unifies skills and attacks under one system.

 

[Samloyal23]

Did no one get my movie reference? Anyway, just use common sense. If you cannot be seen you do not need to make a check to avoid being seen, you need to be quiet...

 

[n00bdragon]

I did, but I didn't feel it was worth addressing.