Yeeaaah, I've got no idea how strength of purpose interacts with the thing. Though it's strength that gets overwritten, not willpower. At least thinking on it, it should do its conversion first (since it's passive and always on), so BtF wouldn't find any strength to convert to will, ever. It'd still play with cunning, so if there's dex scaling involved it'll run the check, but... I don't remember what happens when a SoP warden turns on BtF normally. Whether the mag gets overwritten by wil. Guess I can check...
... and tentative testing says it works with SoP... sorta'. Looks like it still runs the strength check and won't attempt the change unless the wil > str check passes (I'm ignoring whether dex is involved or not with that, more in a sentence or two), but the mag replacement overwrites either of them and defaults to what SoP normally does. Basically the only point it interacts consistently is with bows or daggers, and with both only with the dex scaling aspect (and then, only if wil+cun *.6+RF is higher than str+dex). I, uh. I'm not even sure if it's behavior that actually needs fixing, tbh. Only half-way ken how you'd go about it at the moment anyway. Maybe stick a check in front that says if you've got SoP, only do a dex vs cun check and ignore anything having to do with strength?* Or just leave it be. Notably, this is a BtF tweak, and not a SoP one, so if SoP wants to flat overwrite regardless of what happens to the modifier elseways I'm not going to try to argue with it
And yeah, the not weapon thing was in that first attachment, heh. Though yeah, there's no checks for a mag modifier. As near as I can tell, whatever BtF is doing elsewhere doesn't even recognize magic exists, so there... wasn't really a reason for one. Checking with the bit of coding that's being played with wouldn't really
do anything.
*If <whatever says do I have SoP> and weapon and weapon.combat.dammod.dex or <repeated, except ammo> then yaddayadda vs cunX, probably stuck in the front of it all and not bothering with the talent anywhere else. Conceptually you'd want to do a launcher check, I guess, but I'm having trouble figuring out what the edge case would be where you'd pass one of those checks and not be benefited but not the other so effort, re: lack thereof.
... incidentally, could I paren the weapon/ammo check? Talcheck and (weaponetc or ammoetc) then foo? I could check but it's probably easier to ask, heh. I'm not even sure if it'd make a difference but I've apparently forgotten how order of operations works in sentential logic so yeah.