Here's my scenario. A fighter and monk both possess Paired Opportunists, but only the monk has Vicious Stomp. When the monk knocks an opponent down(let's assume by tripping), that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity. However, the attack must be an unarmed strike, which the monk is perfectly okay with. But what about the Fighter Standing next to him that also threatens the opponent? Paired Opportunists states that:
... Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity)
So does the fighter then just get an normal, unrestricted AoO, since the situation would normally deny him the ability to perform it with a weapon, and Paired Opportunists specifically overcomes that? Or for some other reason would the fighter only be able to use an unarmed strike for his AoO?
Necroing this because I want to know, too.
The restriction doesn't transfer. There is no mechanism by which it would transfer. It doesn't make much sense for it to transfer either.
Vicious Stomps AoO is still an AoO, even with the restriction, and that is all paired opportunist cares about. Paired opportunist then triggers and grants an AoO, there is no restriction on paired opportunists. You would need something like a "with the same limitations and restrictions as the triggering AoO" clause.
My read of this is that the fighter could use his weapon. Paired Opportunists doesn't care about anything other than the monk getting an AoO.