The Jeremy Crawford clarification is interesting. It contradicts the RAW of the PHB. Or maybe confuses “general” bonus actions for reactions.
@JeremyECrawford The basic falling rules in D&D assume a fall is instantaneous. If you'd like rules for a very long fall, take a look at the section called "Falling" in "Xanathar's Guide to Everything" (p. 77). #DnD
@JeremyECrawford No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action. #DnD
PHB pg 189 BONUS ACTIONS Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take. You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
the language isn’t restricting the way Crawford describes. There is no rule that states an action has to be fully completed before another one can’t be started and completed. There are bonus actions and reactions that have specified “trigger” timing, but this is not the general rule.
this is partially where some confusion came from with the shield master bonus action feature.
”If you take the attack action on your turn” is different than “after you’ve taken the attack action on your turn”.
The rule is that from start to finish the fall is assumed to be instantaneous. The rule is not that the fall begins instantaneously. The quote from the dev is consistent with this.
There are two different questions here and you are conflating their answers.
When does the fall start?Immediately
How long does the fall last? Instantly
The rules and quotes you've referenced all are answering question 2. The fall's duration is instantaneous.
But question 1... now that is the more important question. When. When does the fall start?
Answers in red (Bold emphasis mine) so the only question is Are you Falling?
Are you Falling? 1. No, then you don't immediately drop.
2. Yes, then you immediately drop, instantly descending up to 500 feet.
Falling: When you fall from a great height, you instantly descend up to 500 feet.
Rate of Falling: The rule for falling assumes that a creature immediately drops the entire distance when it falls.
You're the one not understanding that falling is immediate and resolve instantly. You shifted from saying a bonus action could interrupt the fall to saying you can take a bonus action before you even begin falling! You can't take action or bonus action any time when you fall because it's immediate and instantaneous. Otherwise, any creature would take action and bonus action before they fall when a trap spring from under them or when knocked prone while flying or pushed off a ledge!
The rule is that from start to finish the fall is assumed to be instantaneous. The rule is not that the fall begins instantaneously. The quote from the dev is consistent with this.
There are two different questions here and you are conflating their answers.
When does the fall start? Whenever on your turn you want it to
How long does the fall last? Instantly
The rules and quotes you've referenced all are answering question 2. The fall's duration is instantaneous.
But question 1... now that is the more important question. When. When does the fall start?
Answers in red (Bold emphasis mine) so the only question is Are you Falling?
Are you Falling? 1. No, then you don't immediately drop.
2. Yes, then you immediately drop, instantly descending up to 500 feet.
Falling: When you fall from a great height, you instantly descend up to 500 feet.
Rate of Falling: The rule for falling assumes that a creature immediately drops the entire distance when it falls.
You're the one not understanding that falling is immediate and resolve instantly.
Neither of those statements answer question 1. "When" does the fall start. They only answer how long the fall lasts. So I fixed it.
They're also pulled from optional rules text. The actual RAW doesn't include this.
You shifted from saying a bonus action could interrupt the fall to saying you can take a bonus action before you even begin falling!
Did I? On page1 I said "Do it before they fall."
My answer is consistent, correct, and RAW. Is there a reason you feel it is necessary to mischaracterize my argument in this way?
You can't take action or bonus action any time when you fall because it's immediate and instantaneous. Otherwise, any creature would take action and bonus action before they fall when a trap spring from under them or when knocked prone while flying or pushed off a ledge!
This isn't the end of the world you think it is. Letting your players actually control the order of events on their turn like the book RAW says they do isn't going to ruin your games. Oh no! Can you even come up with a single instance where letting someone use their Bonus Action before falling would break anything, anywhere, under any circumstance? Just hyperbole and fear. There is nothing here to be worried about.
What's funny is you are trying to throw traps into the mix when they specifically wouldn't work the same way. A fall trap incorporates the fall with the function of the trap. It is one concrete whole. The fall and the trap are the same event.
But knocking someone up 5ft with crusher doesn't itself involve their falling. They fall after your attack. Nothing about your attack, itself, causes a fall. The fall is a separate event that triggers after your attack resolves because they're not on the ground now.
That is why. That is why you can squeeze your Bonus Action in between the attack and the fall. They are two different events. And you get to choose when on your turn you use your bonus action.
You can't interrupt a trap's fall with a bonus action because the fall is the resolution of the trap triggering. One event.
The "separate event" thing versus "one event" doesn't make sense to me. Pushing someone up in the air triggers them falling back to the ground. The floor dropping out beneath you triggers you falling to the ground. A trap that tosses someone into the air triggers them falling back to the ground. If you intentionally step off a cliff it triggers a fall. Falls are either instantaneous or they are not.
When does the fall start? Whenever on your turn you want it to
If you think you can decide when to fall on your turn i don't know what rules as written you're basing yourself on to think that. It's not what the rules say, nor how the Devs intended it. You might be conflating your personal rulings with what RAW is.
If the DM says you fall, you don't first get to take your action, bonus action and move and decide to just fall at the end of your turn. Here's hyperbole.
When does the fall start? Whenever on your turn you want it to
If you think you can decide when to fall on your turn i don't know what rules as written you're basing yourself on to think that. It's not what the rules say, nor how the Devs intended it. You might be conflating your personal rulings with what RAW is.
If the DM says you fall, you don't first get to take your action, bonus action and move and decide to just fall at the end of your turn. Here's hyperbole.
The main time when you can decide when you fall is when you jump. (This isn't the topic of this thread but that ship seems to have sailed long ago).
You stand at the edge of a cliff fighting one opponent while others of them are charging in your direction. You make a last attack and then, hit or miss, still need to step back. You look down, perhaps even as you fall, see a ledge and misty step as a bonus action. It may be homebrew but I think I'd allow an attempt perhaps with a spell attack or arcana check to see how quickly you can act. You might still take some damage but I'd find it hard not to permit a rule of cool.
The topic of this thread is not, did someone jump, but were they pushed. (Personally, I think the idea of the crusher feat being used to raise someone off the ground is BS so let's consider horizontal movement off a ledge). If you haven't readied an action and you don't have a reaction response and if you don't have or fail a save, you fall. It isn't your turn to do anything else.
The text for Bonus Actions says: "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action." If, for instance, someone pushes you, that happens on their part of the turn sequence on the turn order, not yours. You get pushed and if you don't save or can't react, you fall.
Falling is not part of your action. Nothing about the attack, feat, or ability says that the target falls. Falling happens after your action as a natural consequence of not being on the ground. It is not caused by the player. It is not part of their action.
Yep. Yep. Neither is there anything saying you can hoist something off the ground and yet that's the interpretation that people seem to be going with. Nope, but we can salvage the majority by more simply saying, "Falling happens ... as a natural consequence of not being on the ground." Yep, it's caused by not being on the ground. Yep, but it's still a consequence of the action that people here think that the crusher feat can achieve. What goes up must come down. Time, tide and, it can be argued, gravity as well, waits for no positioning in the turn order. Why should it? If there is nothing to prevent you from falling, you start falling.
Time, tide and, it can be argued, gravity as well, waits for no positioning in the turn order. Why should it? If there is nothing to prevent you from falling, you start falling.
Nothing stopping them from falling except *checks notes* Telekinesis.
The "separate event" thing versus "one event" doesn't make sense to me. Pushing someone up in the air triggers them falling back to the ground. The floor dropping out beneath you triggers you falling to the ground. A trap that tosses someone into the air triggers them falling back to the ground. If you intentionally step off a cliff it triggers a fall. Falls are either instantaneous or they are not.
Sure I suspect that is where some people are going wrong and then doubling down.
Does the attack say it causes falling? Honest question, simple yes/no. No. It doesn't.
This character has the crusher feat, so their attacks do get modified, so let's examine their modified attack. They deal bludgeoning damage and can move a target 5 ft. Does any of this say it causes falling damage? No. it doesn't.
None of the text of attacking, the related feats, or abilities being used has anything to do with falling whatsoever.
So when the attack is fully resolved their target is left 5' off the ground. This is where the DM makes a ruling that because they're not on the ground that they fall.
The DM must make that ruling, because nothing in the attack resolution leads there. No text in anything related to the attack causes a "fall" of any kind, only after the attack resolves does the DM interject and makes a ruling.
That is 2 different events.
Compare to a pit trap.
Simple Pit. A simple Pit Trap is a hole dug in the ground. The hole is covered by a large cloth anchored on the pit’s edge and camouflaged with dirt and debris. The DC to spot the pit is 10. Anyone stepping on the cloth falls through and pulls the cloth down into the pit, taking damage based on the pit’s depth (usually 10 feet, but some pits are deeper).
Here the fall is called out in the trap itself, it is baked in, and is RAW.
The fall from after knocking someone up 5ft is a ruling and not triggered by the text of the ability. The fall comes after the attack. But with the pit trap, the fall is part of the resolution of the trap.
We know that the guy crushed up 5' into the air is going to fall, of course he is. But he is going to fall after the attack resolves because the fall isn't part of the attack resolution.
Right there leaves an opportunity to squeeze the bonus action in. because you can choose when on your turn a Bonus Action happens. You can't interrupt your attack, sure. You can't interrupt the fall, (maybe) let's say sure for now. But you absolutely are free to put your bonus action between two different events. You don't need to interrupt the attack, you don't need to interrupt the fall.
You telekinetically shove them immediately after knocking them up into the air.
Is any of this realistic? No! We're very literally arguing over the timing about invisible mind magic of moving objects. We're talking nonsense.
Time, tide and, it can be argued, gravity as well, waits for no positioning in the turn order. Why should it? If there is nothing to prevent you from falling, you start falling.
Nothing stopping them from falling except *checks notes* Telekinesis.
As a bonus action, you can try to telekinetically shove one creature you can see within 30 feet of you. When you do so, the target must succeed on a Strength saving throw (DC 8 + your proficiency bonus + the ability modifier of the score increased by this feat) or be moved 5 feet toward you or away from you. A creature can willingly fail this save.
On the questionable interpretation that the previous crusher hit could have raised a person 5 feet off the ground (that person would be 10 feet away and 5 feet up). Pushing them 5 feet further would leave them, perhaps, 15 feet away and 7.5 feet up. Still not enough to cause damage but, after the shove, I don't see why the telekinetic crusher would or could stop their opponent from falling.
Time, tide and, it can be argued, gravity as well, waits for no positioning in the turn order. Why should it? If there is nothing to prevent you from falling, you start falling.
Nothing stopping them from falling except *checks notes* Telekinesis.
As a bonus action, you can try to telekinetically shove one creature you can see within 30 feet of you. When you do so, the target must succeed on a Strength saving throw (DC 8 + your proficiency bonus + the ability modifier of the score increased by this feat) or be moved 5 feet toward you or away from you. A creature can willingly fail this save.
On the questionable interpretation that the previous crusher hit could have raised a person 5 feet off the ground (that person would be 10 feet away and 5 feet up). Pushing them 5 feet further would leave them, perhaps, 15 feet away and 7.5 feet up.
None of these measurements are correct.
Personally, not only would I allow the TK combo, I'd even let my players move after crushing them 5' up, directly into their previously occupied space. Then TK them up, and then move again out of the way, to the opposite side, and then resolve the fall, if the player wanted. Because that's cool. And because RAW they get to decide the order of events on their turn. (Again, for those who require it repeated for whatever reason...: So long as nothing prescribes the order for them)
If you can't figure out a cool way to narrate that sequence of events that's not a D&D issue.
Still not enough to cause damage but, after the shove, I don't see why the telekinetic crusher would or could stop their opponent from falling.
No one has said they float in the air forever. Of course they fall.
Time, tide and, it can be argued, gravity as well, waits for no positioning in the turn order. Why should it? If there is nothing to prevent you from falling, you start falling.
Nothing stopping them from falling except *checks notes* Telekinesis.
As a bonus action, you can try to telekinetically shove one creature you can see within 30 feet of you. When you do so, the target must succeed on a Strength saving throw (DC 8 + your proficiency bonus + the ability modifier of the score increased by this feat) or be moved 5 feet toward you or away from you. A creature can willingly fail this save.
On the questionable interpretation that the previous crusher hit could have raised a person 5 feet off the ground (that person would be 10 feet away and 5 feet up). Pushing them 5 feet further would leave them, perhaps, 15 feet away and 7.5 feet up. Still not enough to cause damage but, after the shove, I don't see why the telekinetic crusher would or could stop their opponent from falling.
Crusher being able to move a creature in any direction 5ft, including vertically, isn’t questionable. Especially in a book that contained several movement features specifically worded to limit movement to horizontal movement. Forced movement was a large focus for tashas.
Falling is not part of your action. Nothing about the attack, feat, or ability says that the target falls. Falling happens after your action as a natural consequence of not being on the ground. It is not caused by the player. It is not part of their action.
I never said falling was part of the attack.Falling happen instantly when you move the target up 5 feet. Even if you could attack twice with Extra attack, the creature would fall before you attack it again because the rules says you instantly falls. And the Develepper too.
They do not, and this has already been explained to you.
Quote:
"The rule for falling assumes that a creature immediately drops the entire distance when it falls."
[This is the start of a quoted text appearing later]. The rule is that from start to finish the fall is assumed to be instantaneous. The rule is not that the fall begins instantaneously. The quote from the dev is consistent with this.
There are two different questions here and you are conflating their answers.
When does the fall start? [This is the first point where an answer was written in to the quote which, when you quoted the section, you changed to:] Whenever on your turn you want it to
How long does the fall last?
The rules and quotes you've referenced all are answering question 2. The fall's duration is instantaneous.
But question 1... now that is the more important question. When. When does the fall start? For questions about when, I gotta go back to the quote I've referenced from the start. "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn". You choose when the bonus action happens. You choose to have it before the fall, then the When does the fall happen question is: After the bonus action.
Nothing, RAW, prevents this combo. Nothing. Not the official rules, nor this optional rule on falling XGTE. Nada. Devs have repeatedly gone out of their way to stress that whoever's turn it is is in control of timing of events on their turn unless that timing is otherwise specified.
OK, sorry, I think I've caught up now.
You use your action to hit the opponent and, if DM agrees, the opponent goes into the air. It is still your turn and you go for a combo with your bonus action to push the person further with the telekinetic feat.
Once past the part about crusher sending someone into the air (which I think stretches things) the second part about combining action and bonus action is the bit that now seems more feasible to me. (Sorry that I was slow). It could be a bit like a boxer doing a one-two combination but with the second hit not being limited as a physically produced action because it's telekinetic.
I'd imagine that there'd be at least a pretty reasonable chance that a character could get the timings synced up well enough to do something like this.
On distances, opponents with non-reach weapons engage in combat when they are 5ft away from each other. A crusher, telekinetic character bludgeons an opponent to move them 5ft further away and, if the DM agrees, they also move five feet up. If the crusher, telekinetic character doesn't move then the telekinetic bit would move the target another 5ft away which would leave the target 15ft away and 7.5 feet up. If, however, the action and bonus action were combined with forward movement which, if we were to perhaps falsely rig things into a sequence, could be considered to occur between the action crush and bonus action telekinesis, then you would have remained 5ft away from the target who would, on this interpretation, also be 5 ft in the air. The telekinetic bit could then move the target to a height of 10 ft, if you get the timings right. It would certainly be 'cool' if you did.
Crusher being able to move a creature in any direction 5ft, including vertically, isn’t questionable. Especially in a book that contained several movement features specifically worded to limit movement to horizontal movement. Forced movement was a large focus for tashas.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
I know from personal experience that "Crusher being able to move a creature in any direction 5ft, including vertically, is... questionable" from the very direct evidence, from my point of view, that I have questioned it. In a context that makes any attempts at realism, I just think it's BS.
... I can imagine a powerful boxer hitting an opponent so that their feet come off the ground - but 5 feet off the ground?
I'd rule that crusher moves an opponent predominantly in a horizontal direction and that the strength-based saving throw for a subsequent use of the telekinetic feat would still typically apply.
Others may take a different interpretation but that's mine.
When does the fall start? Whenever on your turn you want it to
If you think you can decide when to fall on your turn i don't know what rules as written you're basing yourself on to think that. It's not what the rules say, nor how the Devs intended it. You might be conflating your personal rulings with what RAW is.
...
This is where getting things out of context can lead to miscommunication.
"In my younger days" when I had a tennis racket, I could bounce a ball up with it and could choose whenever, if ever I wanted it to fall. I think that this was the kind of thing that Ravnodaus was getting at but in a more time-limited way.
Some of the issue is claiming that the combination of crusher, telekinesis, and fall damage is RAW. RAW is a dagger doing 1d4 damage. Being able to push or knock someone vertical is not RAW but rather a DM judgement call. Crusher feat language simply states "move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space". Telekinetic states "shove one creature" . Shove mechanics states "push it 5 feet away from you". There is no mention of horizontal or vertical movement in any of the descriptions.
Claiming that your PC can insert a bonus action before a creature falls is a judgement call. RAW your turn can be interrupted by readied actions, traps, special situations, etc..
Lastly, calling someone a "rule lawyer' or bad DM for not allowing this combo is snarky and unnecessary.
I would probably allow the Crusher + Telekinetic shove chain to be done - aka pushing a creature 10 feet diagonally in the air (it has quite a lot of conditions to meet), but the creature would definitely fall back to the ground (maybe taking 1d6 fall damage) instantaneously after the telekinetic shove is executed.
If you want to push someone horizontally off of a bridge or a cliff, that definitely works even by RAW rules.
Lastly, calling someone a "rule lawyer' or bad DM for not allowing this combo is snarky and unnecessary.
There are a number of responders here who clearly indicated that they don't like the combo and so are looking for ways to shut it down. That's not how rules work. That is how rules lawyering works. When you try to force the rules to spit out your preferred interpretation.
And, a huge distinction was made that you're ignoring there. You're not a bad DM if you don't allow this combo. That's silly. You're a bad DM if you don't allow this combo specifically to hamstring the guy who showed up with this character in mind. Intention matters.
You can rule whatever you wanna rule, but if you're making a ruling to 'break a player's toy' so to speak, then you've crossed a line. That is adversarial behavior. It is bad. Now... that's obviously opinion, sure, so maybe unnecessary, but certainly not snarky.
You can rule whatever you wanna rule, but if you're making a ruling to 'break a player's toy' so to speak, then you've crossed a line. ...
A player can play with any toy made available in the world envisioned by the DM. Typically a DM will have concepts about how things will work in their world. Players will come up with ideas that may test those concepts with the DM then making rulings. I agree that if a DM makes a ruling to 'break a player's toy' so to speak, then that crosses a line but more typically I'd hope they're making rulings to preserve their envisaged world. There can also be a lot of room for compromise between the two. In these cases phrases like "I'll allow it" might be used.
Lastly, calling someone a "rule lawyer' or bad DM for not allowing this combo is snarky and unnecessary.
There are a number of responders here who clearly indicated that they don't like the combo and so are looking for ways to shut it down. That's not how rules work. That is how rules lawyering works. When you try to force the rules to spit out your preferred interpretation.
And, a huge distinction was made that you're ignoring there. You're not a bad DM if you don't allow this combo. That's silly. You're a bad DM if you don't allow this combo specifically to hamstring the guy who showed up with this character in mind. Intention matters.
You can rule whatever you wanna rule, but if you're making a ruling to 'break a player's toy' so to speak, then you've crossed a line. That is adversarial behavior. It is bad. Now... that's obviously opinion, sure, so maybe unnecessary, but certainly not snarky.
Many DM's would consider that kind of rhetoric to be crossing a line as well, though. If you want all rulings to go your way, run your own campaign as a DM.
Condemning a DM over a single ruling you disagree with? That is being rather quick to draw lines in the sand.
I was going to repeat myself a third time but realized if you wanted to know what I meant you'd not be asking this question. The answer is above, if you care to find it.
The Jeremy Crawford clarification is interesting. It contradicts the RAW of the PHB. Or maybe confuses “general” bonus actions for reactions.
@JeremyECrawford The basic falling rules in D&D assume a fall is instantaneous. If you'd like rules for a very long fall, take a look at the section called "Falling" in "Xanathar's Guide to Everything" (p. 77). #DnD
@JeremyECrawford No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action. #DnD
PHB pg 189
BONUS ACTIONS
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
the language isn’t restricting the way Crawford describes. There is no rule that states an action has to be fully completed before another one can’t be started and completed. There are bonus actions and reactions that have specified “trigger” timing, but this is not the general rule.
this is partially where some confusion came from with the shield master bonus action feature.
”If you take the attack action on your turn” is different than “after you’ve taken the attack action on your turn”.
Answers in red (Bold emphasis mine) so the only question is Are you Falling?
Are you Falling? 1. No, then you don't immediately drop.
2. Yes, then you immediately drop, instantly descending up to 500 feet.
You're the one not understanding that falling is immediate and resolve instantly. You shifted from saying a bonus action could interrupt the fall to saying you can take a bonus action before you even begin falling! You can't take action or bonus action any time when you fall because it's immediate and instantaneous. Otherwise, any creature would take action and bonus action before they fall when a trap spring from under them or when knocked prone while flying or pushed off a ledge!
Neither of those statements answer question 1. "When" does the fall start. They only answer how long the fall lasts. So I fixed it.
They're also pulled from optional rules text. The actual RAW doesn't include this.
Did I? On page1 I said "Do it before they fall."
My answer is consistent, correct, and RAW. Is there a reason you feel it is necessary to mischaracterize my argument in this way?
This isn't the end of the world you think it is. Letting your players actually control the order of events on their turn like the book RAW says they do isn't going to ruin your games. Oh no! Can you even come up with a single instance where letting someone use their Bonus Action before falling would break anything, anywhere, under any circumstance? Just hyperbole and fear. There is nothing here to be worried about.
What's funny is you are trying to throw traps into the mix when they specifically wouldn't work the same way. A fall trap incorporates the fall with the function of the trap. It is one concrete whole. The fall and the trap are the same event.
But knocking someone up 5ft with crusher doesn't itself involve their falling. They fall after your attack. Nothing about your attack, itself, causes a fall. The fall is a separate event that triggers after your attack resolves because they're not on the ground now.
That is why. That is why you can squeeze your Bonus Action in between the attack and the fall. They are two different events. And you get to choose when on your turn you use your bonus action.
You can't interrupt a trap's fall with a bonus action because the fall is the resolution of the trap triggering. One event.
I got quotes!
The "separate event" thing versus "one event" doesn't make sense to me. Pushing someone up in the air triggers them falling back to the ground. The floor dropping out beneath you triggers you falling to the ground. A trap that tosses someone into the air triggers them falling back to the ground. If you intentionally step off a cliff it triggers a fall. Falls are either instantaneous or they are not.
If you think you can decide when to fall on your turn i don't know what rules as written you're basing yourself on to think that. It's not what the rules say, nor how the Devs intended it. You might be conflating your personal rulings with what RAW is.
If the DM says you fall, you don't first get to take your action, bonus action and move and decide to just fall at the end of your turn. Here's hyperbole.
The main time when you can decide when you fall is when you jump. (This isn't the topic of this thread but that ship seems to have sailed long ago).
You stand at the edge of a cliff fighting one opponent while others of them are charging in your direction. You make a last attack and then, hit or miss, still need to step back. You look down, perhaps even as you fall, see a ledge and misty step as a bonus action. It may be homebrew but I think I'd allow an attempt perhaps with a spell attack or arcana check to see how quickly you can act. You might still take some damage but I'd find it hard not to permit a rule of cool.
The topic of this thread is not, did someone jump, but were they pushed. (Personally, I think the idea of the crusher feat being used to raise someone off the ground is BS so let's consider horizontal movement off a ledge). If you haven't readied an action and you don't have a reaction response and if you don't have or fail a save, you fall. It isn't your turn to do anything else.
The text for Bonus Actions says: "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action." If, for instance, someone pushes you, that happens on their part of the turn sequence on the turn order, not yours. You get pushed and if you don't save or can't react, you fall.
Yep.
Yep. Neither is there anything saying you can hoist something off the ground and yet that's the interpretation that people seem to be going with.
Nope, but we can salvage the majority by more simply saying, "Falling happens ... as a natural consequence of not being on the ground."
Yep, it's caused by not being on the ground.
Yep, but it's still a consequence of the action that people here think that the crusher feat can achieve.
What goes up must come down.
Time, tide and, it can be argued, gravity as well, waits for no positioning in the turn order. Why should it? If there is nothing to prevent you from falling, you start falling.
Nothing stopping them from falling except *checks notes* Telekinesis.
I got quotes!
Sure I suspect that is where some people are going wrong and then doubling down.
Does the attack say it causes falling? Honest question, simple yes/no. No. It doesn't.
This character has the crusher feat, so their attacks do get modified, so let's examine their modified attack. They deal bludgeoning damage and can move a target 5 ft. Does any of this say it causes falling damage? No. it doesn't.
None of the text of attacking, the related feats, or abilities being used has anything to do with falling whatsoever.
So when the attack is fully resolved their target is left 5' off the ground. This is where the DM makes a ruling that because they're not on the ground that they fall.
The DM must make that ruling, because nothing in the attack resolution leads there. No text in anything related to the attack causes a "fall" of any kind, only after the attack resolves does the DM interject and makes a ruling.
That is 2 different events.
Compare to a pit trap.
Here the fall is called out in the trap itself, it is baked in, and is RAW.
The fall from after knocking someone up 5ft is a ruling and not triggered by the text of the ability. The fall comes after the attack. But with the pit trap, the fall is part of the resolution of the trap.
We know that the guy crushed up 5' into the air is going to fall, of course he is. But he is going to fall after the attack resolves because the fall isn't part of the attack resolution.
Right there leaves an opportunity to squeeze the bonus action in. because you can choose when on your turn a Bonus Action happens. You can't interrupt your attack, sure. You can't interrupt the fall, (maybe) let's say sure for now. But you absolutely are free to put your bonus action between two different events. You don't need to interrupt the attack, you don't need to interrupt the fall.
You telekinetically shove them immediately after knocking them up into the air.
Is any of this realistic? No! We're very literally arguing over the timing about invisible mind magic of moving objects. We're talking nonsense.
But it is RAW.
I got quotes!
checks notes:
On the questionable interpretation that the previous crusher hit could have raised a person 5 feet off the ground (that person would be 10 feet away and 5 feet up). Pushing them 5 feet further would leave them, perhaps, 15 feet away and 7.5 feet up. Still not enough to cause damage but, after the shove, I don't see why the telekinetic crusher would or could stop their opponent from falling.
None of these measurements are correct.
Personally, not only would I allow the TK combo, I'd even let my players move after crushing them 5' up, directly into their previously occupied space. Then TK them up, and then move again out of the way, to the opposite side, and then resolve the fall, if the player wanted. Because that's cool. And because RAW they get to decide the order of events on their turn. (Again, for those who require it repeated for whatever reason...: So long as nothing prescribes the order for them)
If you can't figure out a cool way to narrate that sequence of events that's not a D&D issue.
No one has said they float in the air forever. Of course they fall.
I got quotes!
Crusher being able to move a creature in any direction 5ft, including vertically, isn’t questionable. Especially in a book that contained several movement features specifically worded to limit movement to horizontal movement. Forced movement was a large focus for tashas.
Sorry Ravnodous, I think the thread got lost here and I didn't manage to pick it up for a while.
Here's your post from two days ago:
OK, sorry, I think I've caught up now.
You use your action to hit the opponent and, if DM agrees, the opponent goes into the air. It is still your turn and you go for a combo with your bonus action to push the person further with the telekinetic feat.
Once past the part about crusher sending someone into the air (which I think stretches things) the second part about combining action and bonus action is the bit that now seems more feasible to me. (Sorry that I was slow). It could be a bit like a boxer doing a one-two combination but with the second hit not being limited as a physically produced action because it's telekinetic.
I'd imagine that there'd be at least a pretty reasonable chance that a character could get the timings synced up well enough to do something like this.
On distances, opponents with non-reach weapons engage in combat when they are 5ft away from each other. A crusher, telekinetic character bludgeons an opponent to move them 5ft further away and, if the DM agrees, they also move five feet up. If the crusher, telekinetic character doesn't move then the telekinetic bit would move the target another 5ft away which would leave the target 15ft away and 7.5 feet up. If, however, the action and bonus action were combined with forward movement which, if we were to perhaps falsely rig things into a sequence, could be considered to occur between the action crush and bonus action telekinesis, then you would have remained 5ft away from the target who would, on this interpretation, also be 5 ft in the air. The telekinetic bit could then move the target to a height of 10 ft, if you get the timings right. It would certainly be 'cool' if you did.
Crusher:
I know from personal experience that "Crusher being able to move a creature in any direction 5ft, including vertically, is... questionable" from the very direct evidence, from my point of view, that I have questioned it. In a context that makes any attempts at realism, I just think it's BS.
Others may take a different interpretation but that's mine.
This is where getting things out of context can lead to miscommunication.
"In my younger days" when I had a tennis racket, I could bounce a ball up with it and could choose whenever, if ever I wanted it to fall. I think that this was the kind of thing that Ravnodaus was getting at but in a more time-limited way.
Some of the issue is claiming that the combination of crusher, telekinesis, and fall damage is RAW. RAW is a dagger doing 1d4 damage. Being able to push or knock someone vertical is not RAW but rather a DM judgement call. Crusher feat language simply states "move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space". Telekinetic states "shove one creature" . Shove mechanics states "push it 5 feet away from you". There is no mention of horizontal or vertical movement in any of the descriptions.
Claiming that your PC can insert a bonus action before a creature falls is a judgement call. RAW your turn can be interrupted by readied actions, traps, special situations, etc..
Lastly, calling someone a "rule lawyer' or bad DM for not allowing this combo is snarky and unnecessary.
I would probably allow the Crusher + Telekinetic shove chain to be done - aka pushing a creature 10 feet diagonally in the air (it has quite a lot of conditions to meet), but the creature would definitely fall back to the ground (maybe taking 1d6 fall damage) instantaneously after the telekinetic shove is executed.
If you want to push someone horizontally off of a bridge or a cliff, that definitely works even by RAW rules.
May the force be with you!
There are a number of responders here who clearly indicated that they don't like the combo and so are looking for ways to shut it down. That's not how rules work. That is how rules lawyering works. When you try to force the rules to spit out your preferred interpretation.
And, a huge distinction was made that you're ignoring there. You're not a bad DM if you don't allow this combo. That's silly. You're a bad DM if you don't allow this combo specifically to hamstring the guy who showed up with this character in mind. Intention matters.
You can rule whatever you wanna rule, but if you're making a ruling to 'break a player's toy' so to speak, then you've crossed a line. That is adversarial behavior. It is bad. Now... that's obviously opinion, sure, so maybe unnecessary, but certainly not snarky.
I got quotes!
A player can play with any toy made available in the world envisioned by the DM. Typically a DM will have concepts about how things will work in their world. Players will come up with ideas that may test those concepts with the DM then making rulings.
I agree that if a DM makes a ruling to 'break a player's toy' so to speak, then that crosses a line but more typically I'd hope they're making rulings to preserve their envisaged world. There can also be a lot of room for compromise between the two. In these cases phrases like "I'll allow it" might be used.
I was going to repeat myself a third time but realized if you wanted to know what I meant you'd not be asking this question. The answer is above, if you care to find it.
I got quotes!