1) Wildshape, as folk note, gives NO advantage, in 4th ed, except you get to shift 1 when you trigger it. and one extra At-Will power (which cab be used only in wildshape form and you cannot use implement powers in wild form!), and as trade off you lose ability to wield some items (as noted,losign ability to use implements which hampers which powers you can use).
Which would be ok, but...
3rd ed wildshape could be abused, so they've rectified that...a tad too much, like they did for wizards, who are also a tad too poor at their role now, and everyone knows it.
Wildshape now only gives you:
- A Shift 1 for minor action when you trigger it
-Loss of some item use
-Only way you can use some powers. druids get an extra
at will because of this, but many of their powers are directly tied ot being
in wild shape, so you are forced to use it to use your powers (which is ok for class design, but it's an issue I don't think folk get).
Thus you can argue, that wild shape is more a roleplaying thing, now, that gives little substantial benefit.
the other benefits druid's get as a class are:
EITHER
use con modifier in place of Dex or Int when wearing light or no armour
OR
when not wearing heavy armour, +1 speed.
And Ritual casting.
That's pretty damn weak sauce compared to a bard, who gets the same hit points, healing surges and more weapon/armour choices!
bard:
-Ritual Caster feat and bonus ritual use per day
-Bardic virtue, either, slide ally or bonus hit points to ally
-Majestic word, heal similar to a clerics
-Multiclass versaility
-Skill versatility
-Song of Rest
-Words of Friendship
That's *very* unbalanced, IMHO. I know their roles, damage etc are different, but you see what I mean?
2) Spatula is correct.
Folk have missed this point, so I'll say it again:
Druids DO get one very powerful and glaringly odd heal power: an AOE heal at lvl 16 utility, much the same as a cleric does at lvl 10.
Now why is that? Why get that, and a smattering of other heal abilities that do healing only as a by-product?
Honestly, to me, I think the designers weren't sure, and either made a gross mistake and forgot to add things back in afer maybe finding they'd run out of space in PHBII to add more powers for healing,
or they figured to leave as is and see how it plays and to kill the 3rd ed over powered druid (like they have done for the wizard),
or they will add more heals in a Primal Power book.
Hm?
Please remember, I'm not a druid player, I'm a DM. I can accept druids were over powered in 3rd ed (or could be with right set up rather than the basic class).
But, the class is iconic ot D&D, having them as "controllers" is fine, and their secondary role should be leader or striker, but their "leader" abilities, most specifically healing, are
useless, bar 1 or 2 powers.
The shaman class, fyi, existed in 2nd AND 3rd ed (I've still got rhe shaman 2nd ed soft cover, iirc). And is
not the same as a druid.
Fighters fought, bards sang, wizards caster spells, clerics healed, druids healed...but nw druids can't, except at lvl 16 and once in a while.
DUH?!
So, there's a problem.
Druids should get either more heals in their utility powers, similar to but weaker or different than a clerics' (they were never as much into healing as clerics but they definatley DID heal), or some innate heal of weaker type, like a regen.
You could maybe make those balanced on whether they go Primal Guardian or Predator, as the class Feature list is seriously lacking, big time.
WOTC threw the baby out with the bath water, on this, IMHO
