No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
However, LordXcano has a point in that '''this feat in particular''' seems unreliable, and that it might be better if we use other ones instead, |
However, LordXcano has a point in that '''this feat in particular''' seems unreliable, and that it might be better if we use other ones instead, |
||
</div> |
</div> |
||
| − | Which feat are you referring to Ant? cause if that's the case--- Matthew's suggestion on using the MHS+ stuff from Spider-Man consistently dodging and reacting to Electro's Lightning seems to be the most reliable to me |
+ | Which feat are you referring to Ant? cause if that's the case--- Matthew's suggestion on using the MHS+ stuff from Spider-Man consistently dodging and reacting to Electro's Lightning seems to be the most reliable to me. |
| − | Because he does create and manipulates natural lightning after all |
+ | Because he does create and manipulates natural lightning after all. |
Latest revision as of 06:32, 1 May 2017
Antvasima wrote:
Well, I agree that our standard practice is to use high-end feats that are not complete outliers, and that Spider-Man can be scaled from other characters with similar levels of feats anyway.
Well, I agree that our standard practice is to use high-end feats that are not complete outliers, and that Spider-Man can be scaled from other characters with similar levels of feats anyway.
However, LordXcano has a point in that this feat in particular seems unreliable, and that it might be better if we use other ones instead,
Which feat are you referring to Ant? cause if that's the case--- Matthew's suggestion on using the MHS+ stuff from Spider-Man consistently dodging and reacting to Electro's Lightning seems to be the most reliable to me.
Because he does create and manipulates natural lightning after all.