Interaction of White Lotus Hindrance and Terrain Advantage

[Al'Kelhar]

Hi guys, I'd like a little help with rules clarification.

The Benefit of the White Lotus Hindrance feat states:

"When you hit an enemy with an arcane at-will attack power, that enemy treats all squares adjacent to you as difficult terrain until the end of your next turn." (My emphasis)

The Benefit of the Terrain Advantage feat states:

"If a target of your attack occupies a square that is difficult terrain, you gain combat advantage against that target." (My emphasis)

If I have both feats and hit a target with an arcane at-will attack power, if that target is adjacent to me before then end of my next turn, do I have combat advantage against it? (The issue here is whether "treating" a square that you occupy as difficult terrain" is the same as "occupying a square of difficult terrain").

Many thanks for your wisdom, Al'Kelhar

 

[Unwise]

It is a matter of whose perspective the terrain must be difficult. I would say it has to be from the victims perspective. Otherwise you end up in ridiculous situations where you get combat advantage over aquatic creatures who are in the water. Or dryads who are in the undergrowth. Forest/stone/snow/sand walk abilities would mean that they do not treat those areas as difficult terrain.

So yeah, in the interests of avoiding really odd situations, I would say it should work.

 

[Piratecat]

I'd absolutely say yes.

 

[jester_gl]

By RAW those two feats work together. Is your target in difficult terrain? Yes. Is a dryad in difficult terrain while in a forest square? No she ignores it.

Is a shark in difficult terrain while in water? Nope but that's because water is not difficult terrain. It requires an athletic check to move unless you have a swim speed, which is a different story.

 

[mkill]

I'd say yes, "X treats square as difficult terrain" = "square is difficult terrain for X"

Otherwise you walk down a dark path where the workings of the game aren't decided by the "Rule of Cool", the "Rule of Keep it Simple", and the "Rule of Get on with it", but the "Rule of really caring about choice of wording, even more than the hacks who wrote this"

I want to play Dungeons & Dragons (D&D), not Linguistics & Lawyers (L&L).

 

[SensoryThought]

I'd say yes, but be reluctant to let players take it without good reason (like frostcheese).

 

[the Jester]

Absolutely yes. It's worth rewarding synergies.