We don't talk about Pun-Pun
In my experence 99% of the time it was 1 time only but there was no rule... and the 1 time I remember someone doing more everyone wanted to kill him...Well, my thought was, it was implied because they called it "dual" class, not "switch classes as much as you want". I have no actual evidence either way, other than what happened when I tried to dual class a second time in Baldur's Gate I (nope!), though I'm not saying we should take the rules of a computer game as evidence.
EDIT: checking the 2e PHB however, to my surprise, it actually does say there is no limit to the number of classes a character can acquire! I will go back and edit my earlier post.
by the end of 2e we had swapped multi and duel class for thematic reasons... long lived races had level limits, they stopped being X and started trying Y instead, but humans (and I think we sometimes let half elves) had to cram everything in at once...
Now that's interesting, between the first and second printing, it went from "there's no limit to the number of classes" to "you can acquire up to four classes, one from each group".
i don't remember thatbit about in the group ( and i am SUREI remember details from 33 years ago ) but I do remember rangers that wanted to become fighters before we house ruled (same memory so maybe it wasn't a house rule) anyone could specilize after 1st level but only warrior types could master and only fighter high and grand master...Now that's interesting, between the first and second printing, it went from "there's no limit to the number of classes" to "you can acquire up to four classes, one from each group".
I guess they didn't feel the need to mention that there was a fifth group, Psionic characters (but I know a lot of people liked to pretend they don't exist).
I do remember the core books seemed to prohibit the idea of mixing classes in the same group, but the Complete Bard's Handbook had no real problem allowing Thief/Bard multiclassing.
Rogue gets ASI at 8th level vs as 1st level fighter:I'm confused as to why multiclassing is the underlying problem here. It very much feels like we're making an intrinsic argument that dips in and of themselves are bad, not in the pursuit of some particular design reason.
If a Fighter 1/rogue 7 is better than a rogue 8, that suggests whatever rogues get at 8 isn't particularly impressive. I don't think we can evaluate higher level class features as generally "worth" putting up with less impressive mid-level features, because it's very much not a given that any game ever uses them. With that in mind, I think it's much more pointing to a need to make class features after level 3 more compelling than the 1-3 features of other classes.
Honestly, I don't think there's much wrong with a lot of the classic dip options. Hexblade, for example, isn't really that overwhelmingly powerful; you're just adding "attack with a weapon" to the most of spellcaster action options at expected accuracy. Given that it's an action cost vs. casting spells (and excludes clerics and wizards), I think it's honestly a better argument that "attack with int, wis or cha" should probably be a feat instead of requiring multiclassing.
That's interesting. I suppose they could reword the level 1 text: You gain the X class feature, usable (half as often) until you take a long rest. You can also choose one class feature from the following list: etc. In addition to the current stuff about skills.Rogue gets ASI at 8th level vs as 1st level fighter:
Fighting style(wotc values this as full feats, but most will barely be enough for a half feat if that. but that is another topic)
medium armor proficiency+shields, that is half feat.
martial weapon proficiency, that is half feat.
second wind, that could be a half feat.
so in total(I will rank fighting style as half feat as it in not worth full feat. not even archery): that is 2 feats(more or less) vs rogues 8th level ASI.