Forbidden Thought: How do you run this as a DM?

[Deriven Firelion]

A few questions to see how people run this:

1. If you forbid strike, do you allow Forbidden Thought to trigger on a subordinate Strike like with Reactive Strike or a Strike as part of another action like a Spellstrike or Draconic Frenzy?

Forbidden Thought says if they try to take the action on their next turn, so I would think it would not trigger on Reactive Strike even if it triggers on a subordinate action.

But not sure if the Strike is part of a subordinate action of something like Draconic Frenzy or Spellstrike.

How do you see it?

2. Forbidden Thought says if you take the action on the next turn, then you make the save. But what if you take the action multiple times on the next turn?

If you forbid Strike and the creature strikes three times during its next turn, does it save each time? Save the first time it tries, then becomes immune for the other actions? Or make the save, then take the damage for each forbidden action for the turn, then the effect ends at the end of the turn then become immune to future attempts?

How do you run this for multiple forbidden actions during the same turn?

[yellowpete]

I read it as
1. Only on their turn
2. Even if the attempt is a subordinate action (after all, it's still that action, whether subordinate or not)
3. Only save and take damage once, on the first attempt

[shroudb]

It's still a Strike even if subordinate, since effects that affect Strikes still trigger, I see no reason why Forbidden wouldn't trigger.

For the second question, since Forbidden doesn't have a duration and instead only says "if the target attempts this action then..." I treat it as one and done, no subsequent saves even if you take multiple actions.

[vegetalss4]

By RAW, I don't think it triggers on reactions before their next turn, but I'd be willing to let it trigger on reactions too if the players prefer (consistently for the entire campaign, not a choice each time), because flavorwise it is a bit strange that it doesn't apply yet.
I don't think that'd be too strong.

If they don't go for it, I'd justify it by saying that reactions are too "thoughtless" and "instinctive" "subconscious" actions to be caught by the psychic lock and claimm that that's why you can do them outside of your turn in the first place.

It'd definitely trigger on subordinate-on-turn actions like spellstrike or draconic frenzy

For the second question, I'd only ask them for one save on their turn even if they did it multiple times because of the "the target is then immune for one minute"-clause.

As a final comment, I'd run this as the target being very aware of which action is forbidden, and that it'd hurt to do it.
That just seems to give more fun interactions than a bit of damage

[Lia Wynn]

I've never had anyone use this ability in my game, so this is my first thought for it.

1. I would not have it trigger with Reactive Strike since it specifically says 'on its next turn', but I would have it trigger with things like Spellstrike since that happens on its own turn.

2. I do not think that it would trigger more than once, as it states that once the creature rolls the save against Forbidden Thoughts, it is immune for one turn.

However, if the spell was amped, and the creature did a multi-action attack - like Dual Slice, Frenzy, Whirlwind Strike, etc, I would rule that the Stunned 1 would disrupt that ability due to the action loss from the Stunned on a failed save.

[Finoan]

shroudb wrote:

It's still a Strike even if subordinate, since effects that affect Strikes still trigger, I see no reason why Forbidden wouldn't trigger.

Same. A subordinate action Strike is still a Strike action.

More questionable is things that somewhat behave like Strike but aren't. Like commanding your Animal Companion to make a Strike, or sustaining Legacy Spiritual Weapon. To be clear, I don't consider either of those examples to be things that would qualify as making a Strike

vegetalss4 wrote:

For the second question, I'd only ask them for one save on their turn even if they did it multiple times because of the "the target is then immune for one minute"-clause.

That. That is what I find convincing. When I was reading through the OP question I was on the fence about it. But that looks like the right answer to me.

Also, compare the wording to Needle of Vengeance that clearly does do damage each time.