BBoD (and maybe other magical weapons) seem to ignore dual wielding

[subtledoctor]

3 hours ago, kjeron said:

That doesn't really help, as there are at least three different issues

Sorry, but aren’t all three of those issues addressed by having the weapon use a proficiency that players cannot actually select at CharGen or level-up? Which, again, I am not actually suggesting because my mod  now uses all of the formerly available unselectable-at-CharGen proficiencies (you sleep, you lose).

Well, all issues except this one:

4 hours ago, kjeron said:

proficiency for the weapon is checked BEFORE the equipped effect gets applied

Now THAT I didn’t know… and I have several special spell weapons that try to do this, so I guess I have dome work to do. 

[Luke]

19 hours ago, kjeron said:

That doesn't really help, as there are at least three different issues:

I agree with @subtledoctor : using a guaranteed-unique stat (such as EXTRAPROFICIENCY20) should bypass all those issues. That's because:

• the player cannot mess with it during chargen / level-up
• no existing weapon is flagged as EXTRAPROFICIENCY20 @ offset 0x31
  • As a result, even if you level-up or dual-class while it's active and the changes become permanent, it should not matter

Am I missing something ?

[subtledoctor]

2 minutes ago, Luke said:

even if you level-up or dual-class while it's active and the changes become permanent, it should not matter

Ah well, I didn’t pay enough attention to this one. My suggestion was (WAS) to have all spell weapons use use a free proficiency like 108 or 134. BBoD may be the only one doing that right now, but plenty of other spell weapons exist and could use the same method. But,

1) If setting the proficiency as an equipping effect doesn’t work, then it defeats the point; and 

2) If the effect becomes permanent then you cannot use the same proficiency for other spell weapons. Using up an entire stat - taking it away from potential use by mods - for a single spell is an exceedingly inefficient use of a proficiency. 

So I agree that setting static bonuses is a better solution. BUT I would go one step further and adjust the spell description as well. There’s no reason to be beholden to the profiency-based verbiage - I assume the original spell did not use that description because “grandmastery” was not a core game rule but something in an optional splatbook. So the verbiage was created by Bioware to tie into the mechanic of setting the proficiency to 5. If the FP is changing the latter, then the former is unnecessary and sets a bad example. I would write something like: 

“The sword is wielded with exceptional skill, granting a +3 bonus to attack, a +5 bonus to damage, and striking three times per round.”