There seem to be a couple forum threads about druids being "nerfed" in this or that version of D&D. Something about not being able to shape-change as much, or the 0e/1e druid spell lists not having any attack spells... that sort of complaint. This ties into my recent posts about game balance. Presumably, the reason for the rage against a druid losing or never having certain expected powers is because of a desire for equal mechanical participation ("Waah! My druid is ineffective in the city!") or character-to-character game balance ("Waah! My druid doesn't have as many combat options as a Fighter!")
But I've never understood this kind of argument in a game where you are not being forced to play a druid. If you want as many combat options as a Fighter, why not choose a Fighter? If you like the druid's woodland theme, call your character a Woodland Warrior. Who cares if you chose a class that was weaker, if you had the option to choose something else?
So-called underpowered classes aren't underpowered because someone hated that class or didn't know enough math or whatever. They are underpowered because they are designed for more limited situations. They excel at one tiny thing, and really, in my opinion, the better they are at whatever thing they are good at, the tinier their domain of expertise should be.
The Fighter and the Magic-User, in my view, should be the most powerful classes. Period. Everything else should be more limited in general, but perhaps better in one small area. Clerics have healing spells. Raise Dead, and are better at support/defense magic than M-Us, but they don't have many other kinds of spells, or as many spells as the M-U. Thieves can do some nice damage in a surprise attack situation and can defeat traps and locks, but they are otherwise as bad as an M-U when it comes to fighting. And everything else ought to be no better than a Cleric or Thief.