Board Thread:Off Topic/@comment-25396609-20170505174118/@comment-25936766-20170714025946

It looks better IMO, more efficient since it works for weapons that are not "Gun-Whatever", like the old Crocea Mors, or Stormflower.

While not worded well admittedly, that was a good part of my issues with the template: It's too over-specialized. It's good if you plan on making a weapon like Crescent Rose, which has an inactive form for transport, a Gun mode, and a Scythe mode.

But if the planned weapon was not like Crescent Rose, then the Template becomes far less helpful at best, and becomes unclear and incorrect at worst.

-If the weapon doesn't have an Inactive form like CR does, you cannot do anything in the "Inactive Form" section beyond saying that it's sheathed.

-If the weapon does not have an Inactive form and doesn't transform either, "Active Form" stops being accurate.

It may sound small, but in practice, unless your planned weapon is like Crescent Rose, it can be a pain at times to use that Template.

Another problem was the order of things: "Design" is for purely-aesthetic things, yet it comes before you even describe the actual weapon, let alone any of it's different forms if it has multple ones. At the same time, "Design" by itself implies things beyond just the aesthetics.

---

Now, like I said, I feel it's better than the current one. If the weapon doesn't have an Inactive form, there's no problem since there's no section that demands it. And removing the "Active Form" section while making "Design" be a description of the weapon, makes it remain accurate even if the weapon does not transform.

That said, I think 3 small things of it should be changed:

1) "Usage: How the user uses it", period. We've seen both combat and non-combat uses for weapons, like Ruby using CR to dash around and to slow down her fall, both by firing and using the recoil. There's also Blake using GS in Kusarigama mode to swing around.

2) Features. I just....feel it's a bit needless. Depending on the feature, it's either better placed in the Design or in the Dust Capacity section.

3) Dust Capacity. Why not "Dust Usage" or something like that? Not just what Dust it uses and in what form, but also which function does it serve in the weapon.