Cheiromancer said:
There are various effects which do not affect creatures immune to critical hits. An
arrow of wounding is just one of them;
Devastating Critical is another. I had been thinking of heavy fortification as negating these attacks, but I noticed that the wording does not quite line up. Is "negating critical damage" the same as "immune to critical damage"? Or do the rules distinguish between the two cases?
I've always maintained that the two are very different.
For example, a zombie is immune to critical hits; a confirmed critical against a zombie will not deal multiplied damage. However, a confirmed critical hit
will trigger the Flaming Burst property, which will deal its flaming damage to the zombie even though it was immune to the multiplied damage.
Someone wearing armor of Light Fortification, on the other hand, has a 25% chance that a critical hit will be negated. Roll a confirmed critical hit with the Flaming Burst weapon, then roll the 25% chance. If the critical is negated, then it did not happen, and there is nothing to trigger the Flaming Burst.
This is not the same as having a 25% chance of immunity to critical hits.
Someone wearing Heavy Fortification is not immune to critical hits; it's simply that every single critical hit rolled against him is negated. Criticals are simply something that don't happen to him. But since he is not immune, he does not enjoy the side-benefits, like immunity to Wounding weapons or Stunning Fist or whatever.
I think there was an FAQ or RotG answer at one point that disagreed, and equated immunity with negation, but I don't subscribe to that position
(Tangential aside - note that the 'Wounding' property only appears on the Melee Weapon Special Abilities table, not on the Ranged Weapon Special Abilities table.)
-Hyp.
