Which Trumps? Evasion or Immunity Crit?

[silverwolfer]

I have a feeling most of you are going to say, well..whatver you want


Evasion, lets me dodge AOE's and stuff and reduce damage, while being immune to crit, while not as often, when it does happen you really notice it.

Which would you take if you only had one choice?

[Tar Palantir]

Crit Immunity. Crits happen fairly frequently and are often very swingy. A single crit is more lucky to put you from safe to danger zone than a single AoE. Plus, crit immunity also protects from precision damage (mainly sneak attack), which is also pretty handy. At mid to high levels, the Ring of Evasion is something I usually pick up, since it's nice and not too pricey, but I'd rather live without evasion than be vulnerable to crits.

[Acanous]

Cover grants Evasion. Improved cover grants improved Evasion. Creatures with Consealment cannot be Sneak attacked, and do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Really, the only thing you can't get by carrying a Tower shield around is Crit immunity, so I'd go with that.
Also, Crit immunity costs Heavy Fortification, a +5 Armor bonus. Evasion costs a tenth of that.

[SowZ]

Definitely Crit immunity. The vast majority of enemies can score a critical hit on me. Few can cast AoEs.

[Andezzar]

Cover grants Evasion. Improved cover grants improved Evasion. Can you quote that rule?


Really, the only thing you can't get by carrying a Tower shield around is Crit immunity, so I'd go with that. Gettng total cover from a tower shield prevents you from attacking and (obviously) breaks LoS and LoE.

[Khedrac]

In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Hide checks.It's under "Varying Degrees of Cover".

[Andezzar]

Cover still does not provide regular Evasion. The improved cover is at the discretion of the DM, right?

[Curmudgeon]

Really, the only thing you can't get by carrying a Tower shield around is Crit immunity, so I'd go with that.
Tower shields are a joke. If you're using one for cover you give up all attacks, and it can be sundered unopposed easily by an enemy using sneak attack, Power Attack, Pounce, or any of a number of other ways of getting decent melee damage (TS has hardness 5, 20 HP total). But up until that happens, every enemy spellcaster knows they can target that shield and the spell will hit you.

[Rubik]

Tower shields are a joke. If you're using one for cover you give up all attacks, and it can be sundered unopposed easily by an enemy using sneak attack, Power Attack, Pounce, or any of a number of other ways of getting decent melee damage (TS has hardness 5, 20 HP total). But up until that happens, every enemy spellcaster knows they can target that shield and the spell will hit you.A collar of perpetual attendance for a constant Unseen Servant (and a Small darkwood tower shield) can give you constant cover without you needing to worry about...well...anything, really.

[SowZ]

A collar of perpetual attendance for a constant Unseen Servant (and a Small darkwood tower shield) can give you constant cover without you needing to worry about...well...anything, really.

It's a bit of a joke item, though.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I like crit immunity as it pulls double duty as precision damage immunity. And evasion's cheaper.

[Silvanoshei]

It's a bit of a joke item, though.

Which item are you refering too?

[Rubik]

Which item are you referring too?The collar of perpetual attendance. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fools/20030401c) It's still 1st party, and technically legal.

[TypoNinja]

At first glance, evasion would be better. Reflex saves typically being far more common than critical hits.

However, this is D&D, so why not both? Evasion is so much easier to pick up as a magic item that I would prefer being gifted with crit immunity since its easier to take something already crit immune and give it evasion than it is to go the other way.

[SowZ]

The collar of perpetual attendance. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fools/20030401c) It's still 1st party, and technically legal.

Isn't it only on the D&D page which has the header April Fools?

[Rubik]

Isn't it only on the D&D page which has the header April Fools?Irrelevant. It's a magic item in a funny article about cats, but 'tis still a magic item written by WotC. :smalltongue:

[Tar Palantir]

Isn't it only on the D&D page which has the header April Fools?

That doesn't technically make it any less legal RAW, and in any case it's basically just a continuous item of unseen servant, costed accordingly.

[Aharon]

Tower shields are a joke. If you're using one for cover you give up all attacks, and it can be sundered unopposed easily by an enemy using sneak attack, Power Attack, Pounce, or any of a number of other ways of getting decent melee damage (TS has hardness 5, 20 HP total). But up until that happens, every enemy spellcaster knows they can target that shield and the spell will hit you.

TS Hardness => Hardness (SpC)
TS HP => be an artificer with shield bash and make a Tower Shield your Weapon familiar.

The spellcaster can only target the shield with Target: object spells. The shield also provides safety from bursts and emanations.

You still need a venue of attacking - quickened spells or powers are still possible.

(I admit it is of marginal usefulness, but it is one of the few ways to protect against a disjunction that you aren't expecting).

[Curmudgeon]

The spellcaster can only target the shield with Target: object spells.

Shield, Tower

This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else. The spellcaster can target the shield itself, or target you through the shield.

[Togo]

Animated tower sheild? Now you aren't holidng it...

[TuggyNE]

Tower shields are a joke. If you're using one for cover you give up all attacks, and it can be sundered unopposed easily by an enemy using sneak attack, Power Attack, Pounce, or any of a number of other ways of getting decent melee damage (TS has hardness 5, 20 HP total). But up until that happens, every enemy spellcaster knows they can target that shield and the spell will hit you.

The rest of this is accurate, I think, but how on earth are you sundering an object with sneak attack? Objects are immune to crits!

[Andezzar]

Animated tower sheild? Now you aren't holidng it...Yes you are, you are only not using your hand for holding it:
Upon command, an animated shield floats within 2 feet of the wielder, protecting her as if she were using it herself but freeing up both her hands. Only one shield can protect a character at a time. A character with an animated shield still takes any penalties associated with shield use, such as armor check penalty, arcane spell failure chance, and nonproficiency.Emphasis mine

[silverwolfer]

You know, with how big a tower shield, I would not even botherwith that.


I would cast the spell animate object, and have it always hop or stand in front of myself.

[Eugenides]

Irrelevant. It's a magic item in a funny article about cats, but 'tis still a magic item written by WotC. :smalltongue:

What I do find relevant is that the actual item description says:


At will, the wearer of this collar can call an unseen servant, as the spell, to attend and clean up after him or another creature he designates. The unseen servant performs such mundane tasks as cleaning up hairballs and policing the wearer's litter box. It also grooms the wearer on command, removing burrs, smoothing tangles, and ensuring that the wearer's fur remains soft and well-tended.

Nowhere does it say it can hold items for you. I feel like this has been munchkinned to a whole new level.
1. Take april fool's item.
2. Pretend it does something it doesn't. Say it's completely legal because WotC wrote it.
3. ???
4. Profit!

[Xenogears]

What I do find relevant is that the actual item description says:



Nowhere does it say it can hold items for you. I feel like this has been munchkinned to a whole new level.
1. Take april fool's item.
2. Pretend it does something it doesn't. Say it's completely legal because WotC wrote it.
3. ???
4. Profit!

It summons an Unseen Servant (as per the spell) which according to the SRD can lift up to 20lb and can basically do anything that someone with no skill ranks and a str score of 2 could do other than attack. By my reading there would be no problem with having it hold your Tower Shield (aside from dying to pretty much any AOE ever since it gets no save and "dies" if it takes 6 dmg). I'm pretty sure the description of the item is merely listing examples of what it can do and not an exhaustive list.

[Shining Wrath]

What sort of character?
For a front-line fighter often being targeted by pointy objects, crit immunity can be pretty important.
For a ranger or spellcaster it may be better to avoid AoE attacks.

[Andezzar]

It summons an Unseen Servant (as per the spell) which according to the SRD can lift up to 20lb and can basically do anything that someone with no skill ranks and a str score of 2 could do other than attack.You forget the important restriction in the description of the item:"to attend and clean up after him or another creature he designates. " Holding a tower shield does not fall under attending a creature or cleaning up after it.

[Shining Wrath]

It summons an Unseen Servant (as per the spell) which according to the SRD can lift up to 20lb and can basically do anything that someone with no skill ranks and a str score of 2 could do other than attack. By my reading there would be no problem with having it hold your Tower Shield (aside from dying to pretty much any AOE ever since it gets no save and "dies" if it takes 6 dmg). I'm pretty sure the description of the item is merely listing examples of what it can do and not an exhaustive list.

It says it summons an Unseen Servant, and the spell also very explicitly describes the functions that the Unseen Servant will perform when invoked using this item.


At will, the wearer of this collar can call an unseen servant, as the spell, to attend and clean up after him or another creature he designates. The unseen servant performs such mundane tasks as cleaning up hairballs and policing the wearer's litter box. It also grooms the wearer on command, removing burrs, smoothing tangles, and ensuring that the wearer's fur remains soft and well-tended.

No "OR" is seen. You have to argue that carrying a Tower Shield is a mundane task such as cleaning up a hairball or the litter box. Were I your DM, I'd say that the unseen servant invoked via this collar does things required to care for cats, not combat functions.

[Amnestic]

You forget the important restriction in the description of the item:"to attend and clean up after him or another creature he designates. " Holding a tower shield does not fall under attending a creature or cleaning up after it.

attend: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attend?s=t)
4. to wait upon; accompany as a companion or servant:

Servants/companions would hold items for them, no? I'd say it's definitely under the purrview of the rules.

[Andezzar]

attend: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attend?s=t)
4. to wait upon; accompany as a companion or servant:

Servants/companions would hold items for them, no? I'd say it's definitely under the purrview of the rules.Yes, but interposing that item between the master and an attacker is not.

BTW what's the action required for directing an unseen servant?

[MrLemon]

Okay, let's just end this once and for all, by looking at the SRD description of Tower shield.
WHAT?!! Actually reading ALL THREE central pieces of Rules??!?! MADNESS!!!!!


This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.
Note how a tower shield grants you total cover. And by "you", the text refers to the wielder.
Which, in our discussion here, is the Unseen Servant.
Notice, how the character itself does not have total cover.

Now, one could argue, that the tower shield blocks line of effect, which in itself grants total concealment to everything behind it.
To which I would reply: No, it doesn't, look it up yourselves (see Line of Effect) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm)

[RFLS]

You forget the important restriction in the description of the item:"to attend and clean up after him or another creature he designates. " Holding a tower shield does not fall under attending a creature or cleaning up after it.


It says it summons an Unseen Servant, and the spell also very explicitly describes the functions that the Unseen Servant will perform when invoked using this item.



No "OR" is seen. You have to argue that carrying a Tower Shield is a mundane task such as cleaning up a hairball or the litter box. Were I your DM, I'd say that the unseen servant invoked via this collar does things required to care for cats, not combat functions.


attend: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attend?s=t)
4. to wait upon; accompany as a companion or servant:

Servants/companions would hold items for them, no? I'd say it's definitely under the purrview of the rules.


Yes, but interposing that item between the master and an attacker is not.

BTW what's the action required for directing an unseen servant?

Wow. Uhm. Okay. This item was very clearly written as a joke. It's under the heading "April Fool's Day." That being said, what's the problem with allowing it to act as a continuous unseen servant? I mean...seriously. It's a low level spell that doesn't do much. If you're so dead set on someone not being able to use it, they'll just hire a guy to carry the shield for them, or find another way to get cover, or...whatever. It's not exactly high level munchkinry to treat it as continuous Unseen Servant, is what I'm saying.

[Andezzar]

Whether using it as shieldbearer is munchkinnry is besides the point. As MrLemon pointed out the wielder of the collar does not get total cover. It is the wielder of the shield, so even if the collar (or any custom Unseen servant at will item) works, it does not help the intended recipient.

[Silvanoshei]

Okay, let's just end this once and for all, by looking at the SRD description of Tower shield.
WHAT?!! Actually reading ALL THREE central pieces of Rules??!?! MADNESS!!!!!


Note how a tower shield grants you total cover. And by "you", the text refers to the wielder.
Which, in our discussion here, is the Unseen Servant.
Notice, how the character itself does not have total cover.

Now, one could argue, that the tower shield blocks line of effect, which in itself grants total concealment to everything behind it.
To which I would reply: No, it doesn't, look it up yourselves (see Line of Effect) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm)

Depends, if you put a 5-6 foot wall up in a hallway, chances are you are not going to have line of effect to those behind it. . .

Open battlefield, different.

[Andezzar]

Depends, if you put a 5-6 foot wall up in a hallway, chances are you are not going to have line of effect to those behind it. . .A tower shield is not a 5-6 ft wall. While it may be about 5 ft tall, there is no indication that it is also 5 ft wide. The picture in the PHB (p. 124) even indicates that the shield is much narrower than it it tall. As such it cannot break LoE or LoS or provide total cover except through ways explicitly noted.

[Curmudgeon]

The rest of this is accurate, I think, but how on earth are you sundering an object with sneak attack? Objects are immune to crits!
The Lightbringer Penetrating Strike ACF (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, page 208) lets you deal sneak attack damage with 1/2 the normal dice to a target normally immune to sneak attack. Anything which normally is immune to critical hits is also normally immune to sneak attack, which triggers Lightbringer Penetrating Strike. Add Craven, which provides a sneak attack bonus not based on dice, and you're still doing significant sneak attack damage to objects, characters with 100% fortification, and whatnot.

The downside is that you'll need a flanking partner for this ACF. :smallfrown: The upside is that the game designers didn't make object opponents unflankable (see Player's Handbook on page 153). :smallbiggrin:

[Spuddles]

Tower shields are a joke. If you're using one for cover you give up all attacks, and it can be sundered unopposed easily by an enemy using sneak attack, Power Attack, Pounce, or any of a number of other ways of getting decent melee damage (TS has hardness 5, 20 HP total). But up until that happens, every enemy spellcaster knows they can target that shield and the spell will hit you.

Tower Shields are amazing. It's a nearly free, portable source of cover that you can drop as a free action. They cover many of the weaknesses a low level caster has for virtually no cost. If you're a divine caster, you can put up all the buffs you need while your animal companion does cool stuff. Druid with a riding dog & spellbound companion, for instance.

And of course, every attack wasted on my tower shield is an attack not spent on me.

[silverwolfer]

If you use a living wood tower shield, can you cast vigor on it, so it can heal back up, after combat is done?

[gooddragon1]

If you use a living wood tower shield, can you cast vigor on it, so it can heal back up, after combat is done?

If you want something really stupid you can horribly abuse martial spirit stance (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=232171) and declare the shield to be an ally within 30 feet while lightly slapping yourself across the face (enough to be a melee touch attack, not enough to deal any kind of damage).

EDIT: Even if the shield is just a normal tower shield by the way.

[Greenish]

Tower Shields are amazing. It's a nearly free, portable source of cover that you can drop as a free action.Removing a shield is a move action.

[TuggyNE]

The downside is that you'll need a flanking partner for this ACF. :smallfrown: The upside is that the game designers didn't make object opponents unflankable (see Player's Handbook on page 153). :smallbiggrin:

How… ingenious. Also, terrible; anyone attempting to use this in a game should get books thrown at them. :smallsigh:

[Greenish]

How… ingenious. Also, terrible; anyone attempting to use this in a game should get books thrown at them. :smallsigh:Why, because sundering stuff is so powerful? Because being able to defeat all those inanimate objects faster is cheating?

[Sith_Happens]

Why, because sundering stuff is so powerful? Because being able to defeat all those inanimate objects faster is cheating?

Well yeah. How are you supposed to make your players know the terror of the Gazebo if the rogue can just stab it to death?

[Curmudgeon]

How… ingenious. Also, terrible; anyone attempting to use this in a game should get books thrown at them. :smallsigh:
Whyever would you say that? This response requires two martial characters, with at least one feat invested in a damage booster each (Craven for the Rogue; likely Power Attack for the flanking partner), plus an ACF for the Rogue. The instigating situation only required a 30 gp outlay for equipment on the part of the spellcaster.

I don't think finding a way to knock down a spellcaster's portable cover in less than a round (thus setting up for a beatdown) is any sort of book-throwing offense.

[TuggyNE]

Why, because sundering stuff is so powerful? Because being able to defeat all those inanimate objects faster is cheating?

Neither; there is simply no logical way you should be able to sneak attack objects, certainly not by flanking them. (They don't move or defend themselves anyway!)


Whyever would you say that? This response requires two martial characters, with at least one feat invested in a damage booster each (Craven for the Rogue; likely Power Attack for the flanking partner), plus an ACF for the Rogue. The instigating situation only required a 30 gp outlay for equipment on the part of the spellcaster.

I don't think finding a way to knock down a spellcaster's portable cover in less than a round (thus setting up for a beatdown) is any sort of book-throwing offense.

Inefficient and ineffective cheese is still cheese. :smallsigh: (Also, spellcasters are certainly not the only ones who can use tower shields, nor are tower shields the only objects that can be sneak attacked in this fashion.)

Which of course raises the question: just what is the definition of cheese, anyway, other than the old "I'll know it when I see it"?

[chainlink]

Neither; there is simply no logical way you should be able to...

You're playing the wrong game.

On this board as far as I understand "cheese" is used to describe rules abuse that culminates in OP/TO stuff. This situation is just silly. Like most of 3.5. Ludicrous, strains reason sure. Cheesy? Meh YMMV.

[Curmudgeon]

Neither; there is simply no logical way you should be able to sneak attack objects, certainly not by flanking them. (They don't move or defend themselves anyway!)
This would be an attended object, which means its movement is determined by the character holding it. I don't see being able to sneak attack portable cover as any cheesier than walking around with portable cover in the first place.

[TuggyNE]

This would be an attended object, which means its movement is determined by the character holding it.

So, moving an object around makes it more vulnerable to certain forms of attack? Getting a partner to stand on the other side of an outcropping makes it possible to drive a pick in two or three times as deep?

It may be quixotic of me to keep harping on this, but I really don't think this particular rules quirk can be justified.

[Andezzar]

It may be quixotic of me to keep harping on this, but I really don't think this particular rules quirk can be justified.It makes about as much sense as fighting without any penalties after sustaining several solid hits, but dropping dead or at least bleeding out after another one that is not worse than any of the preceding ones.

[Curmudgeon]

SGetting a partner to stand on the other side of an outcropping makes it possible to drive a pick in two or three times as deep?

It may be quixotic of me to keep harping on this, but I really don't think this particular rules quirk can be justified. It's just an expanded use for the class ability, not what I'd call a "rules quirk". Normally you can't sneak attack objects, just as you can't sneak attack undead. But the ACF which allows you (with help) to sneak attack undead also allows you (with help) to sneak attack objects: find vulnerable spots in something which isn't living. So if you can find a weak point in a Zombie (the brain, say), you can find a weak point in a rock (a natural cleaving plane, for instance).

I think the only hang-up here is that the ability is called "sneak attack" rather than "exploit vulnerability".

[Khedrac]

So, moving an object around makes it more vulnerable to certain forms of attack? Getting a partner to stand on the other side of an outcropping makes it possible to drive a pick in two or three times as deep?

It may be quixotic of me to keep harping on this, but I really don't think this particular rules quirk can be justified.
If you can sneak attack objects (a fairly rare circumstance) then you don't need the partner on the other side - they don't make any difference.
Since the object has no means of perceiving you it is automatically flat footed and you always get sneak attack.

Also, if you are going to complain about rules effects like this - then you are playing the wrong system - D&D is a very unrealistic system.

[Curmudgeon]

If you can sneak attack objects (a fairly rare circumstance) then you don't need the partner on the other side - they don't make any difference.
Except, of course, when the ability to sneak attack objects requires flanking, as it does with Lightbringer Penetrating Strike.

[Khedrac]

Except, of course, when the ability to sneak attack objects requires flanking, as it does with Lightbringer Penetrating Strike.
Oh that would be hilarious, but it does not work on non-animated objects :smallfrown: I found it sufficiently funny to look up (and my copy of EtCR is only about 5' away) - Lightbringer Penetrating Strike specifies creatures that are immune to sneak attack, and an object is not a creature.
This has the side effects that any sneak attack based ability that requires a fort save still won't work on undead as it won't work on an object.

[Curmudgeon]

Oh that would be hilarious, but it does not work on non-animated objects :smallfrown: I found it sufficiently funny to look up (and my copy of EtCR is only about 5' away) - Lightbringer Penetrating Strike specifies creatures that are immune to sneak attack, and an object is not a creature.
Normally that would be all of it; however, in this case you're both flanking a creature and an object: the tower shield holder, and the tower shield itself.
Benefit: Whenever you flank a creature that is immune to sneak attack damage, you still gain half of your sneak attack dice as bonus damage. Note that this benefit does not extend to creatures that ignore your sneak attack damage because you cannot flank them. In addition, you still cannot gain sneak attack damage against such foes if they are flat-footed. You must flank a creature that is immune to sneak attack damage to use this ability. Flanking the creature is what enables Lightning Penetrating Strike; but the sneak attack damage you gain by flanking a creature is not limited to only that creature.

The devil's in the details. :smallwink:

[Talderas]

The Lightbringer Penetrating Strike ACF (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, page 208) lets you deal sneak attack damage with 1/2 the normal dice to a target normally immune to sneak attack.

It wouldn't let you apply sneak attack damage to objects.

Sneak attack has multiple restrictions on targets that aren't valid.


A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies--undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks.

Being able to sneak attack creatures that are immune to critical hits does not permit a rogue to sneak attack undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures. The ability in question must also permit it to be used against those creatures as well.

An object is neither living nor has a discernible anatomy. It is also not a creature. For a rogue to be able to sneak attack an object, it must have an ability that explicity allows it to apply sneak attack damage against objects.

[Curmudgeon]

Being able to sneak attack creatures that are immune to critical hits does not permit a rogue to sneak attack undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures. The ability in question must also permit it to be used against those creatures as well.
But the ability in question does permit it to be used against such targets: it applies whenever you flank a creature which is normally immune to sneak attack damage, for whatever reason. Ignoring critical hits is one reason a target may normally be immune to sneak attack. And objects are flankable. (It makes sense that hitting an attended object would be easier if you've got attackers on either side of the object's holder. But this also applies to unattended objects: they're easier to hit if you attack them from both sides — not that unattended objects are particularly difficult targets with AC 5. That was likely an oversight on the game designers' parts.)

[Talderas]

But the ability in question does permit it to be used against such targets: it applies whenever you flank a creature which is normally immune to sneak attack damage, for whatever reason. Ignoring critical hits is one reason a target may normally be immune to sneak attack. And objects are flankable. (It makes sense that hitting an attended object would be easier if you've got attackers on either side of the object's holder. But this also applies to unattended objects: they're easier to hit if you attack them from both sides — not that unattended objects are particularly difficult targets with AC 5. That was likely an oversight on the game designers' parts.)

If it can be applied to objects, which I am not certain it can, it can only apply to unattended objects that are within your weapon reach while you are flanking a creature immune to sneak attacks. An unattended object is not a creature. A creature, within its definition, says an object is not a creature. The ability requires you to be flanking a creature immune to sneak attack.

That said, all other criteria for a sneak attack to happen must be met for the ability to apply. A dexterity of zero is not the same as being denied your dexterity bonus to AC. The DMG defines what happens when an ability score reaches 0. The line is
Dexterity 0 means the character cannot move at all. He is motionless, rigid, and helpless.
An object cannot be a character since an object is not a creature. Therefore it is not helpless and is not being denied its dexterity bonus to AC. Additionally you can only gain flanking benefits against a character that is threatened by another character. So an attended object held by a creature is still not being flanked by you and your partner and consequently not a valid target for sneak attack damage.

So the only way this could possibly work against an object is for the following to occur.
#1 - You must be flanking a creature immune to sneak attack damage.
#2 - You must be able to cause sneak attack damage without flanking. You can do it by denying dexterity bonus to armor class but you need to find a method that targets or affects an object. Blindness, by definition, does not affect objects. Another method of triggering sneak attack damage would work as well if it can target objects.

Then and only then would an object potentially be able to receive sneak attack damage.

[Khedrac]

Normally that would be all of it; however, in this case you're both flanking a creature and an object: the tower shield holder, and the tower shield itself. Flanking the creature is what enables Lightning Penetrating Strike; but the sneak attack damage you gain by flanking a creature is not limited to only that creature.

The devil's in the details. :smallwink:
By that interpretation you could be flanking an undead but attack someone else entirely - not flat footed, not flanked (and not immune to SA damage) and SA them.

The requirement that it applies only to the creature your are flanking is implicit and would need specific statements not to apply. Remove that and one can start breaking the game down by allowing anything not specifically prohibited in the rules.

[Talderas]

By that interpretation you could be flanking an undead but attack someone else entirely - not flat footed, not flanked (and not immune to SA damage) and SA them.

The requirement that it applies only to the creature your are flanking is implicit and would need specific statements not to apply. Remove that and one can start breaking the game down by allowing anything not specifically prohibited in the rules.

Not exactly. You would still need to meet all the other prerequisites of sneak attack. All this ability does is removed the immunity clause. In which case if you attack a target which is not currently a valid sneak attack target, then your sneak attack dice would be 0d6. So you'd get half of 0d6 which is 0d6.

[TuggyNE]

And objects are flankable. (It makes sense that hitting an attended object would be easier if you've got attackers on either side of the object's holder. But this also applies to unattended objects: they're easier to hit if you attack them from both sides — not that unattended objects are particularly difficult targets with AC 5. That was likely an oversight on the game designers' parts.)

I entirely disagree that unattended objects should in any way be easier to attack if you have someone on the other side flanking them. I also disagree that attended objects should suddenly gain some additional vulnerability just because they're being carried around.

[Curmudgeon]

I entirely disagree that unattended objects should in any way be easier to attack if you have someone on the other side flanking them.
You can certainly debate "should be". However, you can't debate "are":

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner. If your opponent is an object, it's easier to hit when you flank it.

[TuggyNE]

You can certainly debate "should be". However, you can't debate "are":
If your opponent is an object, it's easier to hit when you flank it.

I am not, in fact, stating that the rules don't say that; I'm stating that they do, and furthermore that they definitely shouldn't.

This is a rules flaw, nothing more and nothing less. The fact that it happens to work in favor of weaker classes in many cases is not an excuse, or a reason to keep the flaw around.