To be fair, I've never seen anyone play a Bard as a real healer, and Dragon Shamans are... uh... bad.significantly better healing than a Dragon Shaman or Bard,
By "mundane" do you mean a Fighter, a Barbarian, or a Warblade? I couldn't care less if the Fighter cries himself to sleep at night, really. What stands out as being excessive amongst the defensive abilities in particular?and enough good defensive abilities to make any mundane martial class look like an Elf with 6 Con.
While true, Resurrection does impose a level loss, so it's not exactly free. Also, at that level, you're basically demigods on the power scale. Stylistic differences, I suppose. The resurrection could be dropped without too much of an issue if a DM didn't like it.Your healing, in particular, is extremely powerful because you can Rezz people with no real cost. Assuming the ability is Su, you have unlimited free Resurrections at high levels.
That was the idea, yes. You could focus on one and excel with it, or be good enough with all three to be a generalist character. Is it bad that to be great with one thing you should have to specialize?It almost seems like you're forced to pick which one you're using; if you go Dragonkin, for example, you have to put money into a set of Mithral Full Plate and a martial weapon that you can't use in your other two forms.
*nod* I can see that. Is there a particular set of ways in which you would tone it down, in your opinion?So, yeah. I'm not sure how to best convey it, but this class seems exceptionally versatile and strong. A very well-run Sorcerer or Psion is stronger, but they also have limits per-day; this class doesn't. I'd play a Legendary Ascendant, but I feel that I might have to tone it down to avoid overshadowing other party members.