Wow this guy is all kinds of wrong. First the "-4". If you want to go with this line of thought, you'll also have to prove that "unarmed proficiency" is a thing. The closest you'll be able to find is in the Golarion FAQ which says "if your deity grants you unarmed proficiency then you gain Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat--this doesn't help your point at all.
With your one line you yourself prove unarmed proficiency IS a thing.
As well under animals it explicitly states that animals areProficient with its natural weapons only.Under Unarmed Strikes it explicitly states that:
Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons.
So given those quoted rules, animals are not proficient with unarmed strikes. Hence a -4 to hit with them assuming they have them which is purely house rules since nowhere I can find in the core rules says such a statement. Again if there is somewhere that says this I would welcome the rule quote.
As you've said, animals are capable of taking the feat because their int is high enough (3+).
What I said was that if they had that Int and you assumed they were proficient (which the rules categorically say they are not) and had unarmed strikes (which again I cannot find any rule that says they have them) then yes they could take the feat if they physically were cable of it.
-5 to hit "in the same round"? No, no, and no. Absolutely not. You only take the -5 to hit for using secondary natural attacks (or primary natural attacks that are downgraded to secondary because) when you use a combination of natural attacks and manufactured (including unarmed in this case) weapons in a single full-attack action. Anything outside of that full-attack action doesn't have penalties associated with that full-attack.
I will cede that the -5 is possibly wrong. But since the concept of mixing different attack types (manufactured and/or unarmed) with natural attacks is what that -5 represents I think it is a safe bet to go with, especially since wolves do not have any secondary natural attacks so they would be mixing a primary bite with a natural attack on the vicious stomp attack.
Lastly, the point of Vicious Stomp isn't because it does "a lot of damage". It's because with Paired Opportunists you get a free AoO that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise and yours isn't limited to an unarmed strike. So you hit them with your regular weapon (and hopefully it's a high crit range weapon with keen that will keep the combo going provided by Pack Flanking and Outflank).
The attack of opportunity from Viscious Stomp, according to the feat, '... must be an unarmed strike' Paired opportunist had only been even mentioned before in the thread in reference to broken wing gambit so no I was not even considering it. But yes if the hunter had it, it would indeed be another AoO trigger assuming the rest is legal which it isn't.
The rules bear out that the feat combo would not be legal in PFS anyways. I still have seen 0 proof that animals area automatically considered to have unarmed attacks and I have posted rules quotes that show that they are only proficient with Natural Attacks and that Unarmed Attacks are NOT considered natural attacks.
Edit: On page 141 of the core rules, just above the section on 'Melee and Ranged Weapons' it says: "All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race."
Animal Companions are class features which unless stated otherwise are the animal subtype and abide by their rules. The wolf lists no unarmed stike in it's stat block and is not a character.
There is Feral Combat Training. I think that with Improved Unarmed Strike, Vicious Stomp and Feral Combat Training maybe a wolf could use his bite for the attack of opportunity.
But i've to say that probably Gilfalas is right, an animal companion can't take the IUS feat..
...unarmed strike proficiency...
If 'unarmed strike proficiency' is a thing, then a Monk doesn't get it in their list of weapon proficiencies.
As far as creatures making unarmed strikes goes, here's a thread where Alexander Augunas, who is a contributor to the Paizo design team, explains:
The most relevant part of what he says being:
"In reading the Core Rulebook, there is no question that all characters (which is synonomous with creature as per the rules) can make unarmed strikes..."
Animal companions are npcs, non player characters. Everything is a character, even if not a player character
Everything is a character, even if not a player character
I suppose I could get into a RAW definition war about the difference between Characters, NPC's, monsters and creatures but frankly it is not worth it.
The OP will get their answer at the table when they try to play.
I suppose I could get into a RAW definition war about the difference between Characters, NPC's, monsters and creatures but frankly it is not worth it.
Particularly since, as I noted above, you'd be directly contradicting a guy who designs content for Paizo. A player should be able to feel confident about bringing this to a PFS table, since it's widely accepted and backed by various sources.
|
I'd advice you to keep it simple for your girlfriend. If she has trouble making choices she could play a halfling/gnome cavalier riding on a wolf. Cough*Elfquest*Cough.
A halfling could get the outrider alternate racial trait, while a gnome gets Speak with Animals. You can treat a cavalier's mount as a flanking buddy, though you'd lose out on some class abilities. Or maybe you could build a kind of reverse switch-hitter that charges into combat on a mount, then dismounts so that she can move into flanking position.
Wolves are amazing, at low levels they are pretty much auto-win because a prone flanked creature has a net -6AC and it's extremely easy to set up with a 50f move speed tripping creature.
They also trip on AoO, so anyone trying to run past Fluffy will probably eat dirt.
Particularly since, as I noted above, you'd be directly contradicting a guy who designs content for Paizo.
I feel 100% fine with directly contradicting a freelance writer, even if they have submitted work to Paizo in the past.
Now if it was one of the actual Pathdfinder game designers or an actual Paizo employee who is in the design group, that would be something else entirely.
Dot.