Bonus Action: Are more options Versitility or Competition

[5eNeedsDarksun]

So I often read threads where more options for Bonus Actions (usually on Martials) are framed as 'competition' and generally bad or undesirable. At the same time more options for Actions (usually Spells for Casters) are framed as 'versitility' and generally good and desirable. Not having enough is a ususal criticism leveled at PHB sorcerers.

In terms of Bonus Actions I wonder why this is. Surely more options are better than less and provides the player more versitility in combat. Perhaps players are fixated on martials being hyper-focussed on being really good at one thing just to 'keep up', so developing a character that has more BA options is considered wasteful?

Thoughts?

[Kane0]

I think it comes down to how often any given BA is going to be used. Like for example with TWF or Spiritual Weapon the intention is clearly to use your BA every turn, with Rage the intention is to use it once at the start of fight, with Second Wind the intention is to use it once after the fight has started and you've been injured, and so on.

The ones that tie up your BA on a consistent basis are competition, the ones that are one-offs when their situation comes up are versatility.

[PhantomSoul]

I think at least sometimes it makes sense, based on characters I've had. If I feel like I have expanded options and distinct tools, then that's versatility. If I'd want to use the options at the same time, it never feels like the right time for one because another one appeals to me more in the same contexts, and/or some are just way better than others, then they're competing. Basically, if I get to use more different bonus actions and be able to solve more different problems, that's good; if I'm adding options that feel inferior to another one, it's just competition or conflict. Sometimes, feeling like they compete is fine, though -- you want your abilities to be appealing to use!

[Kane0]

Basically, if I get to use more different bonus actions and be able to solve more different problems, that's good; if I'm adding options that feel inferior to another one, it's just competition or conflict. Sometimes, feeling like they compete is fine, though -- you want your abilities to be appealing to use!

Like the BA from Telekinetic feat vs the BA from Shield Master feat?

[LudicSavant]

So I often read threads where more options for Bonus Actions (usually on Martials) are framed as 'competition' and generally bad or undesirable. At the same time more options for Actions (usually Spells for Casters) are framed as 'versitility' and generally good and desirable. Not having enough is a ususal criticism leveled at PHB sorcerers.

In terms of Bonus Actions I wonder why this is. Surely more options are better than less and provides the player more versitility in combat. Perhaps players are fixated on martials being hyper-focussed on being really good at one thing just to 'keep up', so developing a character that has more BA options is considered wasteful?

Thoughts?

It's about opportunity costs, not framing. And it applies to both martials and casters.

If a character has no bonus actions, a feat that grants a good one (like PAM) has full value. If a character already has a lot of good bonus actions, the feat that adds one becomes less valuable. This decrease in value may be sufficient for some other feat to be better for your character, both in terms of raw power and the amount of versatility it adds to the character.

And like I said, this applies equally to casters. For example, Hexblades have a lot of good bonus actions, so feats whose main selling point is grabbing a BA may not be as attractive to them as they are for some others.

The "competition" isn't that it's a bad thing to have more BA options -- if the options were free, more would be a straight improvement. The competition is that one feature might be better to invest in than another.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

It's about opportunity costs, not framing. And it applies to both martials and casters.

If a character has no bonus actions, a feat that grants a good one (like PAM) has full value. If a character already has a lot of good bonus actions, the feat that adds one becomes less valuable. This decrease in value may be sufficient for some other feat to be better for your character, both in terms of raw power and the amount of versatility it adds to the character.

And like I said, this applies equally to casters. For example, Hexblades have a lot of good bonus actions, so feats whose main selling point is grabbing a BA may not be as attractive to them as they are for some others.

The "competition" isn't that it's a bad thing to have more BA options -- if the options were free, more would be a straight improvement. The competition is that one feature might be better to invest in than another.

That's fair, though not always what I see from posters.
Also, I rarely see the same logic applied to Actions, particuarly the Cast a Spell action as it applies to full casters. Subclasses and feats are often touted for providing access to an umpteenth spell, when IMO given many options already available to casters, features that improve or allow specialization are good and often overlooked. Hence the PHB sorcerer reference in my OP; contrary to much of what I read, I tend to think the Dragon Sorc is good in this regard.

[LudicSavant]

That's fair, though not always what I see from posters.
Also, I rarely see the same logic applied to Actions

I apply that logic to Actions every time I make a character building decision.

And while I can't speak to your own experience, I personally see others do it too -- for example, people will often rate spells that provide new action economy (like Simulacrum, Contingency, or Find Familiar) higher than spells that merely provide an alternate Action.

Same goes for any other kind of action economy. For example, people will value Concentration options more if they don't already have Concentration options.

[ender241]

That's fair, though not always what I see from posters.
Also, I rarely see the same logic applied to Actions, particuarly the Cast a Spell action as it applies to full casters. Subclasses and feats are often touted for providing access to an umpteenth spell, when IMO given many options already available to casters, features that improve or allow specialization are good and often overlooked. Hence the PHB sorcerer reference in my OP; contrary to much of what I read, I tend to think the Dragon Sorc is good in this regard.

You may not hear it as much, but the same concern is definitely there. Ever hear someone talk about spells "competing for space"? Essentially if you have two spells of the same or similar level that are used to solve the same or similar problem, you don't really want both of them.

For instance, I'm never going to have a wizard learn both Fear and Hypnotic Pattern. They're both level 3 concentration spells for crowd control. There are certainly situations that one could be better than the other but they're way too similar for both to get consistent use. But something like Dispel Magic in addition to Fear or HP? Much more appealing. Still 3rd level, still an action but a completely different niche. So there's no redundancy knowing both.

Probably the reason you see the issue come up more for martials is that their role tends to be narrower. They are usually (but not always) focused on doing single target damage. So, if I have a Paladin with PAM, I'm not going to want to take a feat or something that adds another BA option in combat because most often it's going to be better to just do a PAM BA attack and smite the bejeezus out of the enemy. If I get something for free as part of my subclass that's one thing (though it's something to consider when picking the subclass), but like LudicSavant said, it's about opportunity cost. If it's between an ASI or feat that adds another BA, the ASI is probably going to be more useful in this situation.

Part of this is the versatility in spells too. If I know I'm going to learn a spell automatically from a subclass/feat that fills a certain niche, I can just be careful to not learn another spell that competes with that one. There are so many different spells that do so many different things that it's easy to avoid redundancy. It's harder to find that same diversity in action economy when your main job in combat is just to hit stuff until it dies.

Finally, regarding the PHB sorcerer subclasses, the issue is that newer subclasses add spells learned at no additional cost. The base number of spells known by sorcerers is fairly low to start with so adding more spells is quite welcome. And like I said, you can just pick other spells appropriately to avoid redundancy. So then, if I'm trying to decide between subclass A with no extra spells or subclass B with 10 extra spells, then subclass A better have really good features to make up for that lack of spell diversity.

[heavyfuel]

At the same time more options for Actions (usually Spells for Casters) are framed as 'versitility' and generally good and desirable.

This here is key.

When people talk about spells and versatility being good, it's always with the subtext that you should be picking spells that offer you different abilities for different situations. If someone were to pick both Fireball and Lightning Bolt, most would agree that this is a poor choice of spells, because they are in direct competition for the same resources (Action + 3rd level slot) and they effectively do the same thing (AoE damage), so while having both these spells can be good in some situations, it isn't usually so.

However, when you pick between Fireball and Fly, these aren't really in competition, because Fly isn't used in the same situation as Fireball. You are more likely to use Fly out of combat, where Actions don't matter all that much.

Same goes for Fireball and Slow. Where Fireball is AoE damage, and Slow is CC.

Casters get to pick their actions from a huge array. When a 5th level Cleric is preparing spells, they get to choose from dozens of options, so they can pick spells for various different situations where they aren't likely to get in each other's way.

Martials, unfortunately, don't have nearly as many options. Rage/Second Wind/PAM/TWF/Flurry of Blows are pretty much all used in the same situation, combat. So, unlike well selected spells, they get in each other's way.

[Malkavia]

I had this debate with myself for a polearm master vengeance oath paladin. In my case it became competition. For the first 2 rounds of combat, I would not have been able to make bonus action attack due to wanting to cast Vow of Enmity and Hunter's mark. I think this was competition since they all 3 had the same goal, increased damage and it felt like the two buffs/debuffs were preventing the use of the attack.

However, I'd consider it versatility in the case of rogues who can use their bonus actions to do different useful things. Sure, there's maybe times where you'd want to disengage and then hide, but I'd say it leans more towards versatility than the paladin example.

[FirstAgeMagic]

It kind of depends on the class too. I feel like many early Paladins and Fighters have some limited options for Bonus Action, so any they get is just good variety.

But then if you look at, say, a Horizon Walker Ranger. Their main ability is a bonus action, but you also probably want to take a turn using Hunter's Mark. Then there's maybe Zepyr's Strike and Healing word but that's all just good variety, right? Well it is if you're exclusively a Bow Ranger. You're basically restricted from being TWF because both TWF and Planar Warrior use the Bonus Action for their main ability (a second attack, or extra damage). So I think there is just a bit of glut in the bonus action slot.

It's easier for Spellcasters or classes with limited Bonus Action uses, but when you have a lot of options, or a Subclass specific Bonus Action use, it feels kind of bad to have to choose between what you're supposed to do, and finding time for what you want to do.

[Chaos Jackal]

Like others have said in various manners, the real issue is first and foremost what you're paying for those bonus actions (or actions. Or reactions. There's not that much of a difference, really) followed by what they achieve compared to what you already have.

If you get what you get for free, then it's automatically versatility. Sure, it might not necessarily be amazing versatility, but you get extra options without really giving anything up. If your DM gives you an item that expands your cleric's spell list and also allows you to prepare those extra options for free, you're getting versatility.

However, if there's a price to pay, then versatility begins to decrease. For the aforementioned cleric example, imagine you're getting some homebrew bonus action healing spell. But you already have healing word. Unless the new spell is decidedly different in its approach (has a very long casting time, is of a substantially higher level, does something extra and unique) what you're getting is an option that serves purposes you can already achieve. Said option also takes slots. It takes from your preparations. Thus, it's competing. You're paying the same cost that you'd pay for an effect you already have. So there's no reason to use both of these effects.

Similarly, if you grab a feat that gives you a bonus action option, what it offers might differ significantly. What other bonus actions do you have? Are there situations where both your feat's bonus actions and the abilities you have could prove useful? How common are those situations? If they are common enough and the feat doesn't offer a substantially stronger effect, you're pretty much paying for something you won't be using, or have no real use for.

The reason you'll see it happening more with martials is because of the more limited applicability of their abilities, particularly in combat. If what you get for your actions is attacks or ways to buff those attacks/deal additional damage, you're pretty much automatically in competition territory, because unless those damage options are for significantly different situations (for example, assuming you expect yourself to switch-hit a lot, an option for melee and an option for range) they'll end up having the same use cases. Thus, the only one you need is the better one, or one of the better ones. All the others are competition. They're not offering you anything new. You're just paying for them.

So if you have a bonus action to gain advantage (say, Fighting Spirit), a bonus action to add extra damage to your attacks (say, an aasimar's Celestial Revelation), a bonus action to make an additional attack (say, Crossbow Expert) and a bonus action to cast a combat buff (say, Magic Initiate for divine favor (don't do that)), what you end up with is competition. You've got numerous options for your bonus action, but they're all doing the same thing in essence, which is boosting your damage output. Some of them might work together over a few rounds, have long-duration effects that allow you to use them once and then replace them with something else, but as combat only lasts so long and not all those buffs are as strong, you end up paying in feats, or racials, or subclass, over alternative options for things you already have. Competition.

Spellcasters are of course also vulnerable to this and you'll see it in discussions if you look for it. Multiple concentration options for limited spells-known classes are an example of this; unless there's a significant difference between use cases of such spells, you don't want to stack up on them, because you're literally unable to use them together, ever. Even off-concentration, this happens; when you can only learn or prepare X amount of spells, having more than Y spells that use the same action, or are of the same level, or do similar things, or worse yet a combination of those, is undesirable. Similarly, picking up Telekinetic might be great in a class/build that offers no bonus actions, but is significantly worse if you're, say, a goblin druid that can already move people around with thorn whip and can already get away from enemies with their racial bonus action.

So really, it's a matter of what kind of build or character resources you're using and what options you already have. There's no standard answer here; each case will be different.

[Salmon343]

I think it comes down to how often any given BA is going to be used. Like for example with TWF or Spiritual Weapon the intention is clearly to use your BA every turn, with Rage the intention is to use it once at the start of fight, with Second Wind the intention is to use it once after the fight has started and you've been injured, and so on.

The ones that tie up your BA on a consistent basis are competition, the ones that are one-offs when their situation comes up are versatility.


It's about opportunity costs, not framing. And it applies to both martials and casters.

If a character has no bonus actions, a feat that grants a good one (like PAM) has full value. If a character already has a lot of good bonus actions, the feat that adds one becomes less valuable. This decrease in value may be sufficient for some other feat to be better for your character, both in terms of raw power and the amount of versatility it adds to the character.

And like I said, this applies equally to casters. For example, Hexblades have a lot of good bonus actions, so feats whose main selling point is grabbing a BA may not be as attractive to them as they are for some others.

The "competition" isn't that it's a bad thing to have more BA options -- if the options were free, more would be a straight improvement. The competition is that one feature might be better to invest in than another.

I agree with both of these, it's a combination of occurrence and cost (and a little bit of utility). I'll add in on the cost front that spellcasters - even sorcerers, which I lament have too few spells known pre Tasha's - have a lot more opportunities to gain bonus action abilities than non-casters. Hence why they have a lot more overlap - the opportunity cost for each option is lesser, thus there's less emphasis placed on how different those options are. You can afford to cover the niche case, while still covering your bases.

An example I'll give, is a Kobold Bladesinger idea I'm prepping (using MotM Kobold). Initially it was one level of monk for the sweet bonus action unarmed strike, before I started reconsidering because attunement was awful (I'd want a melee weapon and a ranged weapon, because you're not necessarily always in bladesong), and I needed to get prof in a ranged weapon (and still start wizard, for wis save prof). My initial hangups about it (after I created a competing build with 1/2 fighter levels instead), were on how to replace the bonus action attack. Should I dual wield instead? That kind of thing. Until I did the play-by-play for when I'd be in melee:

Turn 1: Bladesong (bonus action) + Action whatever
Turn 2: Spirit Shroud (bonus action) + Action attacks
Turn 3: Draconic Roar (bonus action) + Action attacks

Spirit Shroud may be a different concentration spell, like Greater Invisibility or Haste, which would free up one of the bonus actions. (Or it may be Draconic Tranformation, which is also a Bonus Action.) But as Bladesong and Draconic Roar are both PROF / Long Rest, I'd probably be using them in the same battle - so in a typical three round combat that's only one bonus action left, maybe zero if I go for Spirit Shroud. So I realised that while it would be nice to have the bonus action attack - I'd hardly ever use it. So it wouldn't be worth giving up action surge (one fighter level is really two fighter levels), a fighting style, and second wind (and preventing me from using armor). Neither would I go for Polearm Master - I can spend my feats on things I'd get a lot more use out of.

So that was an example of how the usefulness of a bonus action can vary depending on what it does, and how often you'll use it. Bladesong and Draconic Roar are similarly limited, so don't really tread on each other's toes - in fact they synergise - while anything more constant actually becomes sporadic (due to other bonus actions uses), so it's cost must be recalculated accordingly.

[tokek]

This is a high level character problem usually and I really think its fine.

I've been multi-classing my Rune Knight into Ranger and with spell choices there is now a lot of things that character can do for their BA. But that means I can almost switch round the balance of the character from combat to combat and they feel quite different.

Start out with Giant's Might is classic and does the grapple/control thing to keep something big and nasty away from the backline

Start out with Hill Rune makes the character very resilient and hard to take down

Start out with Zephyr Strike its all about positioning and manoeuvre to be hard to pin down while getting stuck into the enemy backline. (Or to throw the javelin of lightning, definitely worth getting advantage on the once-per-day magic item attack)

They are all valid choices and the character is a lot better for having multiple choices. Later in the combat I also have the Fey Gift options (its a UA Feywild Hobgoblin) for BA help actions. So if the character basically just does "Hit thing" with their action its fine because all the variety and flavour of the character comes with the BA choices (and the Reaction choices of course.)

[Psyren]

It's about opportunity costs, not framing. And it applies to both martials and casters.

If a character has no bonus actions, a feat that grants a good one (like PAM) has full value. If a character already has a lot of good bonus actions, the feat that adds one becomes less valuable. This decrease in value may be sufficient for some other feat to be better for your character, both in terms of raw power and the amount of versatility it adds to the character.

And like I said, this applies equally to casters. For example, Hexblades have a lot of good bonus actions, so feats whose main selling point is grabbing a BA may not be as attractive to them as they are for some others.

The "competition" isn't that it's a bad thing to have more BA options -- if the options were free, more would be a straight improvement. The competition is that one feature might be better to invest in than another.

This is exactly right. PAM is a good bonus action on a Zealot barbarian because they probably aren't doing much with that BA. But on a Battlesmith it's much less useful, because you're comparing not just the damage of the BA attack vs. the damage of their defender, you're also comparing that the feat/ASI spent on PAM could have been used for given that they have a decent BA already.

[KorvinStarmast]

For the OP: just remember, not every player wants nor needs more complexity.

Repeat after me: Not every player wants nor needs more complexity.

I have a friend who has been at D&D for slightly longer than I have, who has played every edition.

In 5e his first three characters were: Barbarian, Barbarian, Barbarian.
He wasn't interested in a complicated spell caster, he wanted something less overhead heavy.

Our first adapter in high school (the guy who bought the game first) plays: Dwarfs.
His first three were Paladins, Vengeance.
His next two were Fighter (Champion) and Fighter (Battle Master) (And I had to egg him on to do that). He only occasionally uses BM maneuvers and He Is Happy With His Character.

Repeat after me: Not every player wants nor needs more complexity.

[kazaryu]

That's fair, though not always what I see from posters.
Also, I rarely see the same logic applied to Actions, particuarly the Cast a Spell action as it applies to full casters. Subclasses and feats are often touted for providing access to an umpteenth spell, when IMO given many options already available to casters, features that improve or allow specialization are good and often overlooked. Hence the PHB sorcerer reference in my OP; contrary to much of what I read, I tend to think the Dragon Sorc is good in this regard.

the thing is, spells are one-off actions, usually. outside of an EB warlock build, you're not typically casting the same spell with your action every turn, because they cost a resource. However, when people talk about...well, warlocks for example. a big consideration for what spell you cast in a fight is 'would that spell actually be more useful than just casting eldritch blast'. and in many situations the answer is no. there's not point in dropping a hunger of hadar if there are only 1.5 opponents left, you may as well just EB to try to kill one, the fight won't last long enough for HoH to get major value.

another place it comes up is in nova builds. the whole 'if you stack x, y, and z effects you can do a MILLION DAMAGE!!!. with the problem being that x, y and z are all actions, meaning it takes you 3 turns to set up your nova, at which point the big bad is probably dead anyway. and your nova probably isn't doing MUCH more damage than 3 turns worth of EB would have (or whatever your at will is).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

For the OP: just remember, not every player wants nor needs more complexity.

Repeat after me: Not every player wants nor needs more complexity.

I have a friend who has been at D&D for slightly longer than I have, who has played every edition.

In 5e his first three characters were: Barbarian, Barbarian, Barbarian.
He wasn't interested in a complicated spell caster, he wanted something less overhead heavy.

Our first adapter in high school (the guy who bought the game first) plays: Dwarfs.
His first three were Paladins, Vengeance.
His next two were Fighter (Champion) and Fighter (Battle Master) (And I had to egg him on to do that). He only occasionally uses BM maneuvers and He Is Happy With His Character.

Repeat after me: Not every player wants nor needs more complexity.

So based on that you're somewhat in agreement with me that there is an inherent bias when players come forward with certain martial builds that tends towards advice for a simpler selection of BAs? Basically the communitiy is saying, "You've chosen a Barbarian, therefore we're not going to suggest feats, etc that will add variety. We're going to suggest things that make you better at Option A"? The reverse would be true for players that come forward with obviously more complex characters at the outset?

[Segev]

Versatility is when you have more situations in which you can use your - in this case - bonus action.

Competition is when you'd really like two effects/abilities, but both use your bonus action, and so you have to pick only one of them.

So the question is: do the new bonus action options you're picking up let you do things with your bonus action when you otherwise wouldn't, or are they things you'll never get to use in conjunction with any of the others because they all require the same bonus action to use, and you'd want to use them in the same situations as the others?

[Witty Username]

Diminishing returns is a factor.
Take a ranger argument, having multiple concentration spells increases your versatility, but as they compete with each other for use after a certain point the Ranger stops gaining value from the additional concentration spells.
Now for bonus actions, usually this is in the context of bonus action attacks that are intended to be used every round. This adds an attack cost to your other bonus actions, even if that cost is worth it. If you have a number of useful bonus action options, maybe you don't need XBE.
This also gets into direct competition, a build with Hunter's Mark and XBE has two options for increasing damage as a bonus action. This means the one that does more damage is more useful than the other (usually XBE) and will take priority, and the build may get more use out of another option.
Cunning action/step of the wind options tend to have this problem less as generally wanting to dash, disengage, hide and dodge don't overlap as much for when to use them.

[tokek]

This also gets into direct competition, a build with Hunter's Mark and XBE has two options for increasing damage as a bonus action. This means the one that does more damage is more useful than the other (usually XBE) and will take priority, and the build may get more use out of another option.
Cunning action/step of the wind options tend to have this problem less as generally wanting to dash, disengage, hide and dodge don't overlap as much for when to use them.

I agree with this.

BA choices which essentially do the same thing are too much overlap and you don't really want to have made any investment in them. Two BA choices to maximise your damage once you are in position to deliver your attacks are overlapping. One BA choice for mobility to get you into a good attack position and another to maximise damage give you tactical options, there are no diminishing returns on having distinct useful options unless all your combat encounters are much the same as each other so you don't need any options.

[Psyren]

Hunter's Mark is an interesting example because it only costs you your bonus action once per target. If your target is dying every round (necessitating that you keep switching), then yes, it will conflict with something like XBE. But if the target isn't, then it only conflicts on the round where you set up the mark. In this way, determining the worth of HM vs. XBE becomes more of a calculation of how many rounds you will spend switching vs. benefiting from the bonus attack's damage. And generally speaking, if you're killing a target every round while switching your targets, you probably didn't need XBE anyway.

[Witty Username]

Hunter's Mark is an interesting example because it only costs you your bonus action once per target. If your target is dying every round (necessitating that you keep switching), then yes, it will conflict with something like XBE. But if the target isn't, then it only conflicts on the round where you set up the mark. In this way, determining the worth of HM vs. XBE becomes more of a calculation of how many rounds you will spend switching vs. benefiting from the bonus attack's damage. And generally speaking, if you're killing a target every round while switching your targets, you probably didn't need XBE anyway.

True, ish. As I understand it, this applies if individual enemies consistently live 3 rounds (1 to set up the mark, 2 to make up the damage roughly) their is also the factor of enemies where the lower damage is more beneficial due to how multiple attacks mess with probability. If neither applies, don't bother with Hunter's Mark.
This is reasonable, but I would point out you may be happier with using other spells on a XBE build, like Goodberry, fog cloud or entangle. YMMV.

[Frogreaver]

If it hasn’t been said, ASIs are a much more restricted resource than spells known.

Martials usually get repeated bonus action attacks from feats. Casters usually get bonus actions from spells and usually have 4+ spells known/prepared for every feat.

[MoiMagnus]

That's fair, though not always what I see from posters.
Also, I rarely see the same logic applied to Actions, particuarly the Cast a Spell action as it applies to full casters.

Because peoples complain instead about not having enough spell known, see discussions about pre-Tasha Sorcerer.
If you're short on spell known, suddenly all the versatility of spellcasting becomes a competition, and players start feeling that they can't afford to take the fun spells and are forced to only take the useful ones, and complain about the class design as being too constrained or unpleasant.

Looking at martial characters, peoples complain usually less about the Battle Master manoeuvres being in competition with each other. At level 3 you're a little short but you still have some freedom, and from level 7 and onward you know enough of them to be able to take a few of them for versatility and not care about competition anymore.

Additionally, the important point is that you can't sacrifice spell known to get ASI. You can't sacrifice manoeuvres to get ASI. You can not take a BA-feat to get an ASI instead, so you have some strong incentive to not take this BA-feat if it isn't that useful to you. When you have some trade-off between "Versatility" and "Power", then suddenly all your different ways to be "Versatile" enter in competition with one another, since you want to take the minimal amount of "Versatile" options that still allows you to be versatile enough.

[da newt]

I like versatility / options, but as others have said cost is a factor (burning an ASI on a feat that you only use 1/3 of your combat rounds for example) and spells like HM vs a BA attack (the BA attack is often the better choice mathematically) and also the decision making stress / complexity is part of it too. We all have our preferences and many of us would rather do what we like than what is most optimal mathematically.

I did build a gloomstalker/BM/rogue SS/XBE w/ HXB and I found that the extra attack or cunning action decision was just annoying - it stressed me out more than it made me feel effective - so I asked my DM if I could retcon my XBE and concentrate on using my other BA options. It certainly wasn't more powerful, but it was much more enjoyable for me.

[strangebloke]

basically, if you have no use for BA, a BA ability is 'free' on the action economy side. As soon as you have more than one, its not 'free,' its a tradeoff. Hunter's Mark or TWF attack. Spiritual Weapon or healing word. Etc.

Of course, if an ability is really niche to begin with (like SotW disengage) then the utility really never diminishes because you were only going to be using that in specific situations anyway. Healing Word is always good to have because when you need it, you need it. By the same token, if you already have hex, hunter's mark is almost entirely redundant. They both do nearly the same thing.

Basically, the more options you have the less good new options are, and options are only really options if they do something different from other options.

This logic applies to options for actions as well, and people will readily point out that getting two instances of extra attack for example is effectively a waste.

[Leon]

Can be both and neither. Depending on what you options are and what you need to do. Having the choice isn't a bad thing, unlike its seems to be often made out to be on here.

[animorte]

The basis for the request has been answered quite effectively, I think.

Again, the more options you have obviously provides more versatility. There's just no point including additional options that only provide something you are already capable of.