Just one thing I realized, since the focus is on compatability with using 3.5 Stat Blocks with minimal conversion,
changing the AC list could be problematic in that regard.... (not that anything is set in stone)
That actually sounds good, and forces Druid's to commit resources (Skill Ranks, which are scarce for Druids) if they want to get the most out of the AC. Although if that were to be implemented, I would want to see some more "Epic" usages of Handle Animal, so that maxing it out would have actual purpose/effect besides enabling larger HD AC's...
The problem with the entire concept of limiting the AC based on skill ranks is it does nothing to limit the AC, all it does is reduce the available skill ranks. Even worse is this is a skill the druid is already putting ranks into so it's not really 'costing' him anything.
Just one thing I realized, since the focus is on compatability with using 3.5 Stat Blocks with minimal conversion,
changing the AC list could be problematic in that regard.... (not that anything is set in stone)
That is an issue. But, I don't think it's a much harder conversion than CMB or hit points. Would it maybe be easier to just allow the first couple of tiers? Or would that put too many limitations on players who already have and like the feature?
The problem with the entire concept of limiting the AC based on skill ranks is it does nothing to limit the AC, all it does is reduce the available skill ranks. Even worse is this is a skill the druid is already putting ranks into so it's not really 'costing' him anything.That actually sounds good, and forces Druid's to commit resources (Skill Ranks, which are scarce for Druids) if they want to get the most out of the AC. Although if that were to be implemented, I would want to see some more "Epic" usages of Handle Animal, so that maxing it out would have actual purpose/effect besides enabling larger HD AC's...
That's a really good point. This would, of course, have to be combined with other things to be a full fix, I was just thinking maybe we could add it to the list. However, that's true, it's not costing the Druid new resources.
Other than feats (which, I think spending feats to gain the higher level pets is a good idea), what resources would you like it to cost? Money has already proven unpopular and counterintuitive, so what else could we be 'charging' the druid? Spell slots? hit points?
Handle Animal ranks = HD of animal companion = bad.
20 HD animal companion? No, but thanks for offering.
Handle Animal ranks = HD of animal companion = bad.
20 HD animal companion? No, but thanks for offering.
No no, the suggestion was that you have to have at least as many ranks of handle animal as it has HD. Like for the (poor, underpowered) horse, you'd end up having to have at least 16 ranks at level 20.
Eh. Seems a pointless over-complication. 1 skill point isn't going to make or break a character.
Requiring feats to access mid- and upper-tier ACs might work ok ... and since a 3P druid gains 10 feats by level 19, rather than 7, requiring 2-3 for AC has zero net impact on backwards compatibility.
Status Quo is not good. The AC was problem under 3.5. If there is zero impact there will be zero improvement.
Here's the best I have to offer:
Remove the ability for a Druid to call a different animal companion (trade up). If the player want trade up ability they can take the Animal Domain instead.
Give the option of Improved Animal Companion as a feat similar to Improved Familiar, possibly allowing a one time trade up exception. Have it allow only the first 3 tiers of alternate companions.
Variants on this have been suggested (I put my shoe in this boat early on). The problem is it assumes that the AC is Ok at lower levels which many people don't agree with.
With regard to death of AC. I would have it work like a Wizard losing his failiar for replacing the AC. A slain animal companion cannot be replaced for a year and day. A slain animal companion can be raised from the dead just as a character can be, and it does not lose a level or a Constitution point when this happy event occurs.
Year and a day provision was dropped from the Familiar with Pathfinder.
I think the Improved Companion feat idea is a step in the right direction. Maybe another feat for dire versions of animal, or for dinosaurs?
The druid is one of those classes that has several different abilities (wild shape, spellcasting, animal companion etc) that each make the druid worthwhile in their own. While I prefer the druid to be able to do it all, it does not have to perform equally well in each individual field.
I am of those who think that all class features do not have to be optimum in a single character. The way I see it, different paths (or builds) should go through the selection of feats. Want to play a "boy and his dog" druid, invest in animal companion feats. Want to do a firewall/flame strike harbinger of doom, invest in spellcasing feats. Want to do a combat-oriented wild shifter, invest in the proper feat (which do not really exist at the moment)...
my thoughs...
'findel
The druid is one of those classes that has several different abilities (wild shape, spellcasting, animal companion etc) that each make the druid worthwhile in their own. While I prefer the druid to be able to do it all, it does not have to perform equally well in each individual field.
This is the great puzzle that is the druid. The AC is not "The Problem" it is a piece in the puzzle.
I am of those who think that all class features do not have to be optimum in a single character. The way I see it, different paths (or builds) should go through the selection of feats. Want to play a "boy and his dog" druid, invest in animal companion feats. Want to do a firewall/flame strike harbinger of doom, invest in spellcasing feats. Want to do a combat-oriented wild shifter, invest in the proper feat (which do not really exist at the moment)...
Combat feats do exist, they are the same ones the fighter/ martial characters take. The big difference between 3.5 Wild Shape and now is that you need to invest a bit more into your combat attributes to be a melee druid.
I agree that the druid should have to choose to some extent. Right now a druid can be effective at all three (marginally less effective at spellcasting) with a little effort.
One possibility is to limit the druid's animal companion based on his Charisma. Druids who want full Animal Companion Progression would have to have an 18 CHA. This would help at least for groups that use the 15 point buy.
"The druid cannot attract an animal companion who has more hit dice than 1/2 the druids level plus the druids CHA Bonus. (min 1)"
Requiring feats to access mid- and upper-tier ACs might work ok ... and since a 3P druid gains 10 feats by level 19, rather than 7, requiring 2-3 for AC has zero net impact on backwards compatibility.
That's a really excellent point. It doesn't hurt backwards compatibility at all.
Requiring feats to access mid- and upper-tier ACs might work ok ... and since a 3P druid gains 10 feats by level 19, rather than 7, requiring 2-3 for AC has zero net impact on backwards compatibility.Status Quo is not good. The AC was problem under 3.5. If there is zero impact there will be zero improvement.
Wait...isn't the improved AC feat what you were in favor of? I lifted it from one of your posts.
Here's the best I have to offer:
Remove the ability for a Druid to call a different animal companion (trade up). If the player want trade up ability they can take the Animal Domain instead.
Give the option of Improved Animal Companion as a feat similar to Improved Familiar, possibly allowing a one time trade up exception. Have it allow only the first 3 tiers of alternate companions.
Variants on this have been suggested (I put my shoe in this boat early on). The problem is it assumes that the AC is Ok at lower levels which many people don't agree with.
I like the no trading up. It means you have to either wait a long time for it, or get something less powerful and stick with it.
Actually, I don't think a lot of people disagree with that. I think just a couple do. From personal experience, the low-end pets do start pretty darn good, but then you hit level 2 and it doesn't matter anymore because 2 fighter levels > 2 doggie or 3 horsey levels by a lot. Then, those options start to really really suck around level 6 or so, so the players who keep the low end stuff get kinda screwed. Is one level seriously worth all this upset?
Also, you have to meet us halfway here. People who like the pet are willing to make a lot of provisions for people who don't (including getting rid of the popular high end stuff), so you may have to just suck it up in the name of compromise.
Also, I'm curious to hear what other resources you think AC should cost? What about costing spell slots or something?
I'm sorry, I'm an idiot. I don't even think this came up on this thread yet. What about choosing between wildshape and animal companion? Personally, I'm ok with it (if AC gets a few extra hit die and stat boosts at the highest levels to compensate for the difference in various ACs) because I've never been that into wildshape. Is this too much for players to give up? not enough? I know a lot of people have proposed this, but I don't know how much it screws with people's concepts.
Wait...isn't the improved AC feat what you were in favor of? I lifted it from one of your posts.Requiring feats to access mid- and upper-tier ACs might work ok ... and since a 3P druid gains 10 feats by level 19, rather than 7, requiring 2-3 for AC has zero net impact on backwards compatibility.Status Quo is not good. The AC was problem under 3.5. If there is zero impact there will be zero improvement.
Yeah, and tribeof1 convinced me it's not enough.
|
What about choosing between wildshape and animal companion?
In the Book of Experimental Might, Monte Cook suggests a series of 'Disciplines' that a Druid can choose from, and one of them is Wild Shape and another the Animal Companion. As levels progress, the Druid gets more choices, and can purchase other options, or improve upon previous choices. By spending specifically, a Druid under this system can have an Animal Companion *and* Wild Shape, but neither will have all the bells and whistles and neither will be as good as a 3.5 Druid would have, but if he were to dedicate all of his Discipline choices on enhancing one of these choices, it would end up being superior to 3.5 Wild Shape (at the cost of no Animal Companion) or 3.5 Animal Companion (at the cost of no Wild Shape).
I kinda love that 'a la carte' method, although it takes about two pages to describe the complete list of Druid Discipline options under that format (with the Druid then choosing from those options), instead of the half-page to page of the current write-up.
Even if the BoXM Discipline idea isn't used, I would love for the format to be compatible with it (or for Monte to tweak the Discipline list to allow one to build a Pathfinder Druid, and then swap things out in this modular sort of way to have a BoXM style Pathfinder Druid that has a concentration in Wild Shape, by sacrificing some Animal Companion power, for instance). In my happy perfect universe, I'd be able to a la carte my Druid towards my own preference (great Companion, less Wild Shape), while others can do the exact opposite and have uber Wild Shapers with no Companion at all, while the 'default' Pathfinder Druid in the Pathfinder book serves as a template that has a balanced selection from column A and column B.
|
|
Yeah, and tribeof1 convinced me it's not enough.Wait...isn't the improved AC feat what you were in favor of? I lifted it from one of your posts.Requiring feats to access mid- and upper-tier ACs might work ok ... and since a 3P druid gains 10 feats by level 19, rather than 7, requiring 2-3 for AC has zero net impact on backwards compatibility.Status Quo is not good. The AC was problem under 3.5. If there is zero impact there will be zero improvement.
Um, glad I could help. Although I didn't mean to suggest that requiring feats for upper tier ACs was the entire solution, only that it could be part of one.
I also think there's merit of rolling Wild Shape into the Natural Bond list of choices. I've done that in previous 3.5 campaigns, allowing Druids to pick two of the following three: Wild Shape, Animal Companion, or one nature-themed Cleric domain.
Even with only two of the three, however, the Druid still gets too much good stuff. But what if the choice was pick 2/3 (slightly weaker Wild Shape, slightly weaker Animal Companion, or a domain), with the option to spend feats to gain a third (maybe at -5 levels, as suggested in another thread), or bring one of the others up to the traditional level of power? That way, druids can focus in one area if so inclined, dabble in many, or reach something near the power level of a 3.X Druid with full Wild Shape and AC, at the cost of most of their feats?
I also think there's merit of rolling Wild Shape into the Natural Bond list of choices. I've done that in previous 3.5 campaigns, allowing Druids to pick two of the following three: Wild Shape, Animal Companion, or one nature-themed Cleric domain.
Even with only two of the three, however, the Druid still gets too much good stuff. But what if the choice was pick 2/3 (slightly weaker Wild Shape, slightly weaker Animal Companion, or a domain), with the option to spend feats to gain a third (maybe at -5 levels, as suggested in another thread), or bring one of the others up to the traditional level of power? That way, druids can focus in one area if so inclined, dabble in many, or reach something near the power level of a 3.X Druid with full Wild Shape and AC, at the cost of most of their feats?
Do you mean pick one of the three or two of the three? Right now they get 2 of 3 ((AC or Domain) and Wild Shape) the only difference from what you suggest is that they would have the option to do AC *And* Domain which seems to contradict your previous statement (bolded above).
I think choosing one of the three would be pretty decent provided a little sanity checking was put into the AC (Jason's suggestions above are a good thought... or requiring feats.)
In the Book of Experimental Might, Monte Cook suggests a series of 'Disciplines' that a Druid can choose from, and one of them is Wild Shape and another the Animal Companion. As levels progress, the Druid gets more choices, and can purchase other options, or improve upon previous choices. By spending specifically, a Druid under this system can have an Animal Companion *and* Wild Shape, but neither will have all the bells and whistles and neither will be as good as a 3.5 Druid would have, but if he were to dedicate all of his Discipline choices on enhancing one of these choices, it would end up being superior to 3.5 Wild Shape (at the cost of no Animal Companion) or 3.5 Animal Companion (at the cost of no Wild Shape).
I like this idea... I don't have the BoXM to check it out fully though not really keen on the idea of Wild Shape or AC being more powerful than in 3.5 though.
|
|
In the Book of Experimental Might, Monte Cook suggests a series of 'Disciplines' that a Druid can choose from, and one of them is Wild Shape and another the Animal Companion. As levels progress, the Druid gets more choices, and can purchase other options, or improve upon previous choices.I like this idea... I don't have the BoXM to check it out fully though.
It's worth it, although I hear it will be printed soonish as a Paizo store offering anyway, perhaps bound with BoXM2. He gives Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Paladins and Rangers Disciplines (allowing a Ranger to also choose to swap out some class abilities for a better Companion, or cut back his companion for some other woodsy abilities, for example). He's got a ton of other rules tweaks, and I wouldn't suggest some of them, but this one was sweet.
Why not a simple solution?
Swap the rules for AC between the Ranger and Druid.
Give the druid the weaker one- since he really doesn't need it- and boost the ranger's- since melee classes suck anyway.
Simple solution without any "new rules" to deal with.
Thoughts?
-S
You may as well get rid of it then. The Ranger's Animal Companion is a one-hit wonder at higher levels of play, only fit to serve as a mount or a pack mule.
With regard to the question of whether or not Animal Companion is currently OK at lower levels, is it a matter of it currently being too good or not good enough? Druids are relatively weak at lower levels so having the AC be a bit better there is not so problematic. It should however diminish in power starting about 4th level when the Druid starts getting up to speed.
Herein is the crux of the whole low level thing, I don't see druids as being relatively weak at lower levels. Even if he were weak at lower levels the riding dog/ wolf is overkill for compensating him for that weakness.
Now that I've had more time to think about it, I think preventing replacing the deceased companion after a delay of till the character gains their next level would be better.
I think this would be a good rule for both the AC and the Familiar.
That's one thing that surprised me about the Animal Companion class feature in 3.5. Nature-worshipping Druids and Rangers, who presumably love their furry little friends, can get them killed off and replace them in 24 hours with impunity. Fiend-blooded Sorcerers and evil Necromancers who are as likely to kill their annoying Raven Familiar as listen to it's annoying Int 6 prattle of inane questions, lose experience and then have to spend a *year* and 100 gp to replace it.
I am 100% in agreement with this statement. Losing an Animal Companion needs to be an event that is as bad or worse then losing a familiar. I don't think Druids should be forbidden from letting their Companion go or replacing it with another one, but losing an Animal Companion in combat should be a very tramatic event and should be represented as such in the rules.
The problem with doing this through handle animals is not generally due to ignorance but more due to work load. It's one more task/ set of rolls which the DM has to deal with in an already busy scenario. There are also lots of judgment calls involved. Would the Animal Companion do that without being pushed? Which means the rules are applied inconsistently.
Can you provide an example of a particular trick that requires clarification?
Evasion is not for animal companions, any class feature that is not a part of the class that has the companion is not logical for the companion to have. Neither Druid or his spells have anything to do with Evasion or Improved Evasion. I would still keep the Evasion for the Ranger's companion but also remove Improved version.
Maybe SR at higher levels would be more appropriate or some healing ability, or a way for the druid to channel spells through his companion.
I must respectfully disagree with you. The ability of Animal Companions and Familiars to have Evasion is one of the main things that keeps them alive. Remove that ability, and both Animal Companions and Familiars will get annihilated at higher levels of play.
Having been in a group where the Gnome Barbarian's riding dog got a share of the treasure because he was so effective in combat I won't even try to argue this. I guess I'm more willing for the AC to make the Druid better than average at low levels and then provide diminishing returns as the druids other abilities increase.
If it wasn't tied into Nature Bond which grants a Domain as an alternative, I would say just delay it till 4th level and make it work at Druid level - 3 as the base (actual numbers open to adjustment).
This is one of the problems with the idea of forcing a choice between the AC and wildshape. Wildshape doesn't kick in until 4th level. Just giving the players the choice of wild shape or the AC at level -3 at 4th level would be great. Leadership doesn't show up until 6th level... ;) Ditch the whole cleric domain bit entirely.
That idea won't fly with most people on this thread though since they don't see a problem with the riding dog.
(3) Natural Spell still exists. Druids get the equivalent of Still and Silent for free useable on every spell.
Here is how the feat is currently written:
You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while using wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.
You can also use any material components of focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form.
So this basically allows you to cast spells while Wild Shaped and gives you a situational Eschew Materials. It does not allow someone to cast a spell as if it was Silent or Stilled - they still have to be able to move and make noise.
That being said, I'd rather see the Druid lose Natural Casting then Wild Shape or Animal Companion.
A ranger rolling around with a mega-raptor is only marginally less appealing to me than a druid with one. Get rid of some of the higher level options or at least make them expensive in terms of player resources.
When you have Wizards cruising around casting Quickened and Empowered Meteor Swarms in the same round, a Ranger or a Druid having a Megaraptor or a Dire Lion isn't really as overpowered as you make it out to be.
Now that I've had more time to think about it, I think preventing replacing the deceased companion after a delay of till the character gains their next level would be better.
Man. Nothing but mad hate for Familiars and Animal Companions in this thread. It's like reading the World of Warcraft forums! lol
So they purchase a riding dog as a mount and then make it their Animal Companion when they reach the appropriate level. It's called compromise. So long as everyone takes an "all or nothing" attitude the only result will be deadlock. I for one am willing to accept Druids being on the high side of the power scale if they take a cut. I don't expect perfect, but I insist on trying for better.At 1st level anything that can contribute to combat will be at least as good as a PC. There isn't enough room down for there to be a difference. The best way I see of dealing with this is to have AC lag behind the PC as they level. It's a compromise, but if the AC's contribution diminishes and levels off about equivalent to PC level - 3 then it should be reasonably balanced.
Compromising and cutting power is getting rid of the high end options and keeping the low, and adding some of the other, less tweaks. People want to nerf the crap out of the freaking riding dog, a choice that's ALREADY too weak (gonna take a lot of spells to keep a 14 hd animal alive, let alone have it contribute at level 20), and that's unfair, and the rest of us aren't willing to take that as a fair compromise. Having a couple of people repeat it over and over again isn't going to change our minds, we've been more than willing to compromise on other things.
This sounds like a great, simple rule for this.
Perhaps the compromise needed is that a Druid cannot take an animal as an AC until their Druid Level (HD) = the base animal's HD. Yes, this bumps up many of the basic animal companions. Riding Dog, Pony, Wolf and Medium Viper would be 2nd level. Horse and Camel would be 3rd. At high level they still have the same bonus so they end up no worse.
I would actually prefer druid level-1 HD which would give the riding dog at 3rd level but this is a nice compromise for first level. People who want a riding dog can take a regular dog and have it 'upgrade' to riding dog at second level.
Compromising and cutting power is getting rid of the high end options and keeping the low, and adding some of the other, less tweaks. People want to nerf the crap out of the freaking riding dog, a choice that's ALREADY too weak (gonna take a lot of spells to keep a 14 hd animal alive, let alone have it contribute at level 20), and that's unfair, and the rest of us aren't willing to take that as a fair compromise. Having a couple of people repeat it over and over again isn't going to change our minds, we've been more than willing to compromise on other things.
Then it's lucky coincidence that 20th level druids have bucket loads of spells to keep that dog kicking serious butt.
- Call down 24 Hit Die Elementals to take hits for it
- Summon a Swarm of 2d4 Large and 1d4 Huge Elementals to prevent flanking
- And Summon a 15HD Celestial Unicorn to buff and heal your Riding Dog for you all while you are...
Using the full wrath and might of a 20th level caster on whoever is going to F* with your Dog.
Ooops... or did you forget that a riding dog isn't the druids only class power?
If you really want that dog to be the biggest baddest dog on the planet the druid has the spells to make it so. Animal Growth, Bulls Strength,
You can have an army of creatures with your riding dog as the general.
The point is... You want Mighty Dog... Druids have the ability to turn a 14HD dog into Mighty Dog. Their strength is in those types of spells.
Long Lasting Mighty Dog Spells (last 3 hours at 18th level):
- Animal Growth
- Stone Skin
- Air Walk
Plus the shorter duration stuff like the the previously mentioned assistants the druid can polulate the battlefield with, including the dog assistant/ buffer/ healer Unicorn Charger, about 60% of the best battlefield control spells in the game, some of the best offensive spells in the game...
So lets just say the druid isn't going to have too much trouble keeping a riding dog alive.
*yawn*
The first couple of spells had nothing to do with the issue at hand, and, other than one spell (animal growth) all of the buff spells could be cast on a handy dandy fighter. And, after animal growth, it still has....14 HD, it just gets a +4 bonus to con. Yes, I suppose 28 hp help...a bit, but overall, you're still stuck with a 14 HD animal. Besides, that's a lot of turns of buffing.
We get it. You want to make changes Paizo won't make because a lot of players will be annoyed with the changes and stick with 3.5.
Because ultimately you look at the animal companion and if he's super mutt and whine that it's not powerful enough...
All while ignoring the 300# gorilla he's attached to.
At 20th level it is too weak. 1st-5th level is equal to a character or better (one HD ahead). Perhaps the compromise needed is that a Druid cannot take an animal as an AC until their Druid Level (HD) = the base animal's HD. Yes, this bumps up many of the basic animal companions. Riding Dog, Pony, Wolf and Medium Viper would be 2nd level. Horse and Camel would be 3rd. At high level they still have the same bonus so they end up no worse.
That doesn't sound bad. I'm all for the AC having less HD than the party, just not the Druid level-3 progression others want
Because ultimately you look at the animal companion and if he's super mutt and whine that it's not powerful enough...
All while ignoring the 300# gorilla he's attached to.
Well, it could be worse. I could throw a tantrum about druid players because my DM can't say no (or, at the least, won't use handle animal or logistics properly), or I could be the kind of person who's using his grudge as an excuse to limit the options of other players.
The longer this goes, you just argue for the sake of argument, and apparently lose sight of what you ultimately want, as you keep changing your opinion every post. Soon you're going to say druids should flip a coin for HP and have 1/4 bab. And, at the least, I'm willing to make attempts at compromising between the two sides.
The longer this goes, you just argue for the sake of argument, and apparently lose sight of what you ultimately want, as you keep changing your opinion every post. Soon you're going to say druids should flip a coin for HP and have 1/4 bab. And, at the least, I'm willing to make attempts at compromising between the two sides.Because ultimately you look at the animal companion and if he's super mutt and whine that it's not powerful enough...
All while ignoring the 300# gorilla he's attached to.
No.
You said "It will take a lot of Buffing to make the riding dog viable with 14 HD at 20th level." (paraphrased)
I replied "Then it's lucky coincidence that 20th level druids have bucket loads of spells to keep that dog kicking serious butt."
You indicated a potential problem. I replied in a fairly straightforward way that it wasn't a problem and gave some examples for why that wasn't the case. You made silly pointless remarks in response.
Then I replied that you were ignoring the class and laser focused on a single class feature.
Edit: Your complaint was: "gonna take a lot of spells to keep a 14 hd animal alive, let alone have it contribute at level 20"
Druid's HAVE a lot of spells to spare to help the dog out. As I suggested the druid can summon another creature who will take care of buffing and healing the dog.
Here's something to put this argument about Druid Animal Companions into perspective.
A 20th level Druid can have a single 14 HD Megaraptor Animal Companion.
But a 20th Level Cleric, Sorcerer, or Wizard using Animate Dead can have a total of 80 HD of Animated Dead under their control. They can Animate a single creature of up to 20 HD per casting of Animate Dead. This means that these spellcasters can have the following minions at their disposal:
(10) Large 8 HD Skeletal Megaraptors
(05) Huge 14 HD Skeletal Megaraptors
(02) Gargantuan 20 HD Skeletal Megaraptors
Or any other combination of dead Megaraptors that total 40 HD or less.
The Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard all have full casting progression AND they can also supplement their army of Skeletal Megaraptors with all the Summon Monster spells you can eat.
It seems kind of silly to complain about the Druid's Animal Companion when the other classes that have full casting progression can bring this kind of "pet power" to the table.
No.
You said "It will take a lot of Buffing to make the riding dog viable with 14 HD at 20th level." (paraphrased)
I replied "Then it's lucky coincidence that 20th level druids have bucket loads of spells to keep that dog kicking serious butt."
You indicated a potential problem. I replied in a fairly straightforward way that it wasn't a problem and gave some examples for why that wasn't the case. You made silly pointless remarks in response.
Then I replied that you were ignoring the class and laser focused on a single class feature.
Edit: Your complaint was: "gonna take a lot of spells to keep a 14 hd animal alive, let alone have it contribute at level 20"
Druid's HAVE a lot of spells to spare to help the dog out. As I suggested the druid can summon another creature who will take care of buffing and healing the dog.
You know that pet still has? About 120 HP and a 10 BAB, which it can use for it's pathetic one attack, that won't trip successfully and can't do crap for damage. Nom nom nom, the tarrasque and the pit fiend hunger. And you want to nerf it. Yes, the pet can and should be buffed by it's owner, but even with the buffs you mentioned it's very very sub-par. Not because it can't 'tear the enemy apart' like a dire tiger, because it can't even hit the enemy. And if it got within range, the enemy would eat it. I'm arguing for it to be survivable and not completely lose any and all utility. And I'm making the same argument for the entire first level list.
So, by all means, alter the table so a pet never has more HD than the party does levels, but also alter the table so the pet stays survivable and doesn't turn into "You remember when my wolf/horse/snake wasn't monster bait? Those were the days". I'm sorry, the request to scale it back even further, to a 12 HD animal, is stupid.