Can a tumor familiar be attacked while attached?

[Renlar]

The alchemist discovery "Tumor Familiar" states the following:

PRD wrote:

Tumor Familiar (Ex): The alchemist creates a Diminutive or Tiny tumor on his body, usually on his back or stomach. As a standard action, the alchemist can have the tumor detach itself from his body as a separate creature vaguely resembling a kind of animal suitable for a familiar (bat, cat, and so on) and move about as if it were an independent creature. The tumor can reattach itself to the alchemist as a standard action. The tumor has all the abilities of the animal it resembles (for example, a batlike tumor can fly) and familiar abilities based on the alchemist's caster level (though some familiar abilities may be useless to an alchemist). The tumor acts as the alchemist's familiar whether attached or separated (providing a skill bonus, the Alertness feat, and so on). When attached to the alchemist, the tumor has fast healing 5. An alchemist's extracts and mutagens are considered spells for the purposes of familiar abilities like share spells and deliver touch spells. If a tumor familiar is lost or dies, it can be replaced 1 week later through a specialized procedure that costs 200 gp per alchemist level. The ritual takes 8 hours to complete.

My interpretation is that the standard action to detach the tumor makes it a target, is this correct?

[DM_Blake]

It says the tumor is "on his body" and must "detach itself from his body". Items you carry like swords, boots, backpacks, cats, etc., don't need to "detach", which leads me to the conclusion that "on his body" means it is literally part of the alchemist in the same way an arm or leg is "on his body" too, and it doesn't just fall off, get dropped, or get taken away like an item or a creature he's holding might be.

Which is consistent with the concept of a tumor anyway - they aren't "carried" and cannot be easily dropped or stolen, etc., because they are part of the creature.

Given all of that, striking an attached tumor would be like striking an attached arm. In other words, the basic combat rules don't allow for it, but optional called shot rules would (though that might require a GM's ruling about the to-hit modifier for a tumor since I doubt that's in the option rule).

I think the RAI and even RAW support this conclusion, though the RAW doesn't actually state it explicitly.

All that said...

If a wizard has a cat familiar and carries around in his arms, enemies can attack it if they want to. I see no reason that an alchemist's familiar should be granted immunity from this danger, so I would rule that enemies can see it and target it just like they could if it were a living creature instead of a tumor. But that's just me making a call for my home game.

[Renlar]

Makes sense, thank you.

[Ian Bell]

So an attached tumor familiar is also hit by area effect spells, I guess. And it has Evasion. Now there's a gross visual.

[Firebug]

Attended items, which are "less attached"(and can be independently targeted) then the tumor, don't need to save against area effect spells (unless you roll a 1) so I am uncertain how you came to that conclusion based on DM_Blake's post. Unless you focused on the 'home game' part I suppose.

To DM_Blake... I have a tumor familiar on my alchemist (now level 19.2!), and I imagined it always being connected to the abdomen, or perhaps the collar bone area (if it needed to "see"). Regardless, at least partially under my armor (eventually Hellknight plate, try to figure out how long it takes to detach...). Attack-able? Would you then say it gets my armor bonus, its diminutive size bonus and cover for being partially submerged in my flesh?

IMO it is far simpler to consider it non-targetable especially since "detach itself from his body as a separate creature" seems to strongly imply that until it detaches it is not an independent entity (and thus targetable).

[Ian Bell]

It's not an object, it's a creature. My reading is that it should be attackable etc. even when attached.

[DM_Blake]

Like I said before, the RAW makes it fairly clear that it is not attackable. I don't think it's a creature, really, until it detaches.

But as for my own interpretation, I would treat it just like a wizard holding a cat familiar (or the cat sitting in the wizard's pocket, or whatever), as a separate creature that can be attacked. The reason being I don't think the alchemist's familiar warrants having immunity from attacks.

That said, sure, if I played it that way (I'm not even sure I would, though I'm leaning in that direction), I doubt I'd ever have any bad guys target a tumor under your clothing and armor that they wouldn't even know is there. But if it were, say, on your shoulder and you were just wearing a shirt and everyone could see it there, I'd let them attack it without worrying about armor or cover or anything (yeah, its Tiny size or Diminutive size would already be part of its stat block, but being partially buried in your body wouldn't apply).

[Joesi]

DM_Blake wrote:

All that said...

If a wizard has a cat familiar and carries around in his arms, enemies can attack it if they want to. I see no reason that an alchemist's familiar should be granted immunity from this danger, so I would rule that enemies can see it and target it just like they could if it were a living creature instead of a tumor. But that's just me making a call for my home game.

Are you talking about sunder, or attacking a "mounted" target? As far as I know one uses the AC of the "rider", the other uses the AC of the "mount". It seems like you're talking about it still having it's own AC, but would that make sense when the PC will be trying to be avoiding hits as if it was himself?

It's quite a mess.

It might be reasonable for a familiar to crawl behind one's clothing or armor, making it difficult to target. If it's still targetable at all (GM's discretion), it would probably make sense to give it concealment and/or cover depending on what it's behind.

What's kind of strange is how sunder has no penalty (short of giving an AoO) regardless of what is being targeted, while a called shot does. A ring or amulet is a worn item and is a valid sunder target with no penalty, isn't it? I guess it's a case where GM has to manually add penalties for attempting such things, and that targeting a tumor or familiar could be the same.

[DM_Blake]

No, I'm talking about simply attacking it.

Like if a stirge latches onto the alchemist and is sucking his blood, you just smack the stirge with a normal attack.

If a tumor latches onto the alchemist and is, uh, whatever tumors do when they're attached, you just smack the tumor with a normal attack.

As I said, it's not really RAW, but it works for me. Alchemists are awesome enough without needing a simple built-in (literally?) way to make their familiars immune to all attacks.

[_Ozy_]

Except that it takes a standard action, from the alchemist, to detach the familiar from its body in order for it to take actions like a regular familiar, so from an action economy standpoint, having it attached to your body is enough of a penalty that it balances out the immunity from being attacked.

Quote:

As a standard action, the alchemist can have the tumor detach itself from his body as a separate creature vaguely resembling a kind of animal suitable for a familiar (bat, cat, and so on) and move about as if it were an independent creature.

Regarding the above text, it isn't clear to me if the alchemist can change the familiar's form each time it is detached. Any thoughts?

[Taenia]

Based on the previous quote I would say you could not attack an attached familiar. It says

As a standard action, the alchemist can have the tumor detach itself from his body as a separate creature

so before it is detached, it is not a separate creature. So you can not target one or the other separately, they are one creature.

[Joesi]

DM_Blake wrote:

No, I'm talking about simply attacking it.

Like if a stirge latches onto the alchemist and is sucking his blood, you just smack the stirge with a normal attack.

If a tumor latches onto the alchemist and is, uh, whatever tumors do when they're attached, you just smack the tumor with a normal attack.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a target is mounted, they're treated the same for being attacked as if they weren't mounted, aren't they? I just mentioned riding because it's a suitable comparison.

_Ozy_ wrote:

Quote:

As a standard action, the alchemist can have the tumor detach itself from his body as a separate creature vaguely resembling a kind of animal suitable for a familiar (bat, cat, and so on) and move about as if it were an independent creature.

Regarding the above text, it isn't clear to me if the alchemist can change the familiar's form each time it is detached. Any thoughts?

By RAW I guess it could possibly change shape, but both from a logic, balance, and general intent/RAI I think that it's definitely meant to be a fixed creature, unless it dies. That's how the familiar rules work normally.