wich was kinda my point lol . <| sep |> That ' s just not true . You should watch this ted talk 488570 it does a way better job of explaining these things than I have been doing <| sep |> I mean . is it really forgery if the bill doesn ' t exist ? <| sep |> Oh great , another immigrant that will take American jobs . <| sep |> It should put in the descroption that it has a slower cooldown , just like the firelock melees <| sep |> Is criticism allowed here ? If so , I have one . Had . The word had . Try this as an exercise remove the word had from a piece of text to see if it flows better . Example He had made his choice , and he supposed not for the first time that it was just another burden of his command . Now read it without that word He made his choice , and he supposed that it was just another burden of his command . It flows better . It ' s more definitive . Had implies a passage of time relatively distant from the action the character has taken , which is normally fine . However , writing battle scenes or scenes that need high tension , it should remain absent . In scenes such as this the writing should focus on pacing and brevity . You want the reader to speed along with the action and vestigial words like had get in the way . Also , as an editing choice , and this is strictly subjective , but I would have ended the passage on the Fire dialogue . It ' s far more punchy and it tells the reader how important the moment is by ending the passage on it . It spells out the actual final line without having to spell it out for the reader . Of course this is a stylisticediting choice , so like the rest of this comment , feel free to ignore it .