Which do you prefer from an aesthetic perspective, someone with

>>51560794
Definitely the latter. It usually accompanies the hueg guy being fast, which I like. People aren't slow lumbering hulks because they're above average ins size and strength. They have the potential to be much faster, because muscle.

File: bikko_sword.png (364KB, 1000x919px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1000x919px

How high a fantasy are we talking?

Someone with a medium frame using a medium sized sword

File: loli sord.jpg (70KB, 493x800px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 493x800px

Small frame with a greatsword.

Really, petite characters with large weapons is the fookin' best.

>>51560794
Doesn't that end with them all being raped and devoured?

>>51560908
I'm glad OP found the appropriate pic for this thread.

>>51560794
What the hell is a sword-sword?

>>51561057
You know those sword-wielding-a-gun pics? Imagine that, but with a sword instead.

>>51561057
It's a way of saying "just a normal sword" when a different kind of sword, in this case "greatsword", has been said before.

>>51560856
Pure martial or only somewhat exotic materials with limited enchantments. A greatsword is still going to take a good measure of strength to use effectively, even if it's made of something rare.

>>51560894
I hate you and all like you.

>>51560794
Depends on the setting and what I want to play.

>>51561124
Your favorite setting, and what you want to play most at this moment in time.

File: d73b7c45f61bdf987495671d81f7ab9d[1].png (762KB, 653x906px) Image search: [Google]

762KB, 653x906px

>>51561123
Kay

Someone with a small frame using a bastard sword and someone with a large frame using a bastard sword in one hand.

>>51560794
Small frame giant greatsword
It rocks

File: 9028893da8046b77f1d264ef55a6f6e6.png (2MB, 1024x1365px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1024x1365px

Loli is strong.

>>51561279
>>51561260
>>51561245
>>51560894
These anons get it

>>51560826
It's true they're not necessarily slower in terms of running speed (I mean, they are, but not to lumbering-hulk degrees), but they are generally less flexible and agile. Why do you think women consistently outperform men in acrobatics? Part of it is less muscle.

I've dated a few different runners, and they all told me the same thing: at a certain point they had to choose between getting huge and being better at running. If you're carrying around more weight (especially in your upper body), there's a point where it's gonna slow you down more than it's gonna speed you up.

>>51560908
source?They only give me black dogs.

I hate jap shit, so the latter.

>>51562230
It's one of Shindol's (I believe it spelled it wrong, but we all know who I'm talking about) doujins about monsters or the sort. I remember seeing it once beyond the sad panda. I do remember one thing though. It was a bad end for the elves, and I felt dirty for wanking to it.

>>51562368
>It was a bad end and I felt dirty

Sasuga ShindoL.

>>51561814
Don't you put me together with those weeb pedos you sick fuck.

Regards, >>51561245

>>51561819
>Why do you think women consistently outperform men in acrobatics?
Because they don't.

>they are generally less flexible and agile
Generally yes, but not much less and not always. You can be strong, quick and agile (and smart too) at the same time IRL. Real life doesn't have balance.

File: bestiary.jpg (29KB, 720x80px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 720x80px

>>51562368
>>51562407
Bestiary series?

>>51562527
That! It's one of them. I don't think it's the newest one (I'm a horrible person, I know), but it could be the second one. I'll see if I can find it on sad panda.

File: 7df79c2555988eb41d6012b24232c4df[1].jpg (972KB, 2480x2431px) Image search: [Google]

972KB, 2480x2431px

Who keeps giving these girls spooky swords?

>>51562428
One of us, one of us

>>51562527
Found it. It's the second one. Here's the link. https://exhentai.org/g/524348/1e991f1e38/
Praise the Sad Panda. Praise ShindoL.

File: 8bb8b22bc79f632b0ae443b6cd8b9ef9.jpg (91KB, 680x1024px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 680x1024px

>>51562574
Nah, not one of you.

>>51562606
>sadpanda
Man

>>51563898
Anon, it's 1990+27. You bring shame to your family.

>>51563898
I'm not sure what I despise in you more, the fact you're gurofag and want to read Shindol or that you don't know how to access sad panda.

>>51564005
Not him, but how to access sadpanda changes considerably over time. For a while, you literally couldn't get into it at all unless you had previously been there under a different ruleset.

>>51560794
Someone with a large frame using a greatsword

>>51561123
>I hate you and all like you
What did he mean by this?

>>51560794
They both sound really cute. I'd want them to get married

>>51560794
big grills with muscle mass and muscle ass.

File: DS.gif (3MB, 650x450px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 650x450px

Reasonable frame, long sword

>>51565670
Dark Souls had such good visual design, I feel like it's kind of infected my own sense of aesthetic style.

It makes much more sense for someone small to use a longer weapon than a short one. Gotta make up for that reach.

>>51561819
Here's the thing, never during time periods when melee was the primary method of fighting has lightly armored infantry been preferable to heavy infantry. Sure there were plenty of cultures that had good light infantry, but they always suffered against heavily armored units in a straight up fight.

You can be light and run all you like, but once you get into a slog, your ability doesn't help. Being a rogue and dodging until you have a chance to jump in quick and stab someone with a knife doesn't work because people who wear armor wield large weapons train to use them without tiring or slowing down. Every moment a person spends training to kill a knight by exploiting his weaknesses, that knight is training to defend against such exploitative attacks, and he's already ahead due to his gear.

File: sample_a0add56a4ea1c4d10a4f573582c24509f0145129.jpg (628KB, 850x1202px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 850x1202px

>>51560794
Small frame, large sword, telekinesis to swing the sword around independendly while stabbing with second sword.

>>51565830
I don't even care if the game is shit, because she's Grade A waifu meat

>>51565826
>Here's the thing, never during time periods when melee was the primary method of fighting has lightly armored infantry been preferable to heavy infantry. Sure there were plenty of cultures that had good light infantry, but they always suffered against heavily armored units in a straight up fight.

>It's an "anon mixes up single and mass combat" episode

i mean, i'm not even that guy, and i don't necessarily disagree with you, just pick less shit arguments, dude.

>>51565860
I don't really care about waifus, i just want more music like opera boss one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq3_phBQA_Y

>>51565863
Still applies to duels. What are you going to do? Run circles around a big guy? He can turn faster than you can circle him. How are you going to get inside his reach? Two handed weapons are not slow because you get the ability to use them with both hands thereby giving you leverage.

File: deus_vult.jpg (1MB, 1920x2866px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x2866px

>>51565559
You and your kind I presume

>>51560794

Depends on what we're fighting. If it's a battle of sheer strength, greatsword. If it's a battle of mobility and finesse, sword-sword. Buildwise I am partial to shorter characters, but only short as in not-very-tall. Not short as in some weird loli-halfling. Unless the character is literally a halfling.

Yes I'm the sort of sad nerd that has his characters carry a one-handed and a two-handed weapon for fluff reasons

File: berserk.jpg (189KB, 1514x1100px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1514x1100px

>>51560794
BIG dude BIG sword

>>51566334
guts is smol desu

>>51563898
I'm sorry, but the way of the sad panda is the only way I know. You can probably find it on the sister site (get rid of the x).

>>51566393
nhentai's got most of what sadpanda's got.
It's been giving me shitty redirects recently though desu baka

>>51566334
Clang

>>51560794
Either. As long as they use a hand and a half sword.

>>51566334
He's a big guy alright

>>51566137
for honor so good.

>>51567128
>>51567128
>>51567128
>>51567128

File: 337.gif (133KB, 497x501px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 497x501px

>>51567465
it's... it's beautiful.

File: anime-weapon-bust.jpg (24KB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x283px

>>51567465
Christ

File: 48828809_p0.png (2MB, 1400x1838px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1400x1838px

>>51560794
I prefer lanky. Like Artorias, I guess.

>>51567310
Loved all the character designs in For Honor.

File: 1466553298516.jpg (44KB, 600x734px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x734px

>>51560794
Regular sized swords appeal to me the most, regardless of the body size of the character.
I only go for oversized weapons when the character is supposed to invoke Guts rage.

>>51561819
>they are generally less flexible and agile
But that's wrong. Someone very muscular is more likely to strike both harder *and* faster than someone with a leaner build.

>>51560794
Yes

>>51560794
None of them is particularly aesthetically pleasing. Though, I guess the former does look much worse far more often than a large character using a small sword, while it also has the potential to look much better every blue moon or so.

>>51564005
>>51564258
Don't you have to have an account?

Please don't bump the thread if you don't have anything to conbtribute.

>>51560794
Someone with a large frame using a dagger or other weapon that seems like a toothpick in their hands really disappoints me, all other possible combinations are cool by me.

File: 1455391242121.png (218KB, 698x800px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 698x800px

Medium frame, very large sword.

>>51571523
That's not really wrong. Muscle and fat mass does make them less flexible, and they're less agile because of inertia. Agility and flexibility are not the same as speed. That said, the difference is not that big, so 99 times out of 100 a bigger and stronger guy will be a better fighter than a smaller one. However, if a medium or even smaller guy is muscular (and with very low body fat) and very quick he can become an exception, though it happens very rarely, and he will sill have an unpleasant disadvantage of being vulnerable. Achilles was probably supposed to be like this, as Homer describes him. As for real people, Roy Jones Jr. qualifies.

>>51560794
for aesthetic reasons only, small frame with giant sword. So long as the sword has real weight to it.

>>51569062
pretty much this.

I prefer a bit of practicality when it comes to my settings, but big swords in the hands of angry guys is awesome.

>>51573881
>So long as the sword has real weight to it.
Do you mean it's unrealisticlly heavy? Cause then a character with small frame using it looks even more stupid.

File: Object.png (2MB, 2124x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2124x3000px

In case anyone thought of asking: yes, this is porn.

>>51574194
Who cares, we are talking about swords.

>>51566124
Its called you man up, and get in after they swing wide.

The second safest place in a swords range is right next to its user. All you have to do is avoid one hit and get in while they recover.

Once you are there you can stab at any number of weak area's in the armor because regardless of make or type, there will be some.

>>51565734
Dark Souls took my inner ideas on fantasy aesthetics, pulled them out of my brain and put them in a vidya.

I don't know where some of the DaS2 shit came from, but DaS3 got it pretty much exact a second time.

>>51574259

>swinging a sword
>not thrusting, using the distance it gives you, bludgeoning, and grappling dumb shits who 'just have to get past the sword'

You are asking to be raped in the mud.

File: 13581903493229.jpg (53KB, 600x431px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x431px

>>51574259
>All these /v/-tier fantasies about swordfighting

>>51574259
Unlike in games such as Dark Souls, a skilled sword user is not likely to make a beginner's mistake such as "overswinging" the weapon they trained in.

>>51574898
And you assume that a skilled opponent is stupid enough to get slammed by said sword user.

Its all a matter of which manages to get their action through first.

One issue i see with most arguments is they assume the best case for the defender, but the worst case for the attacker. Its not exactly the best way to think on it.

>>51571523
Then why are martial artists smaller than power lifters?

>>51560794
Big guy, small sword, pincushioned enemy.

>>51574259
>in the armor

if you're fighting in armor you aren't "avoiding" any "wide swings" you fucking mongrel, you're using your own weapon and armor to vie for position and leverage so you can take the other guy down and win from there

you have never worn armor, have you?

>>51575560
Other way around you dope

>>51575596

so you have...never...NOT worn armor?

help us out here homes

>>51575624
No you dope, the hypothetical is one fast unarmored person against one armored.

I was saying the fast person would simply keep at range provoking attacks until the armored one swings wide.

>>51560794
I like playing small races with great weapons becasue I find it funny. I once played a maul-wielding halfling whose fighting style revolved around kneecapping the everloving fuck out of people.

>>51575677
>unarmored person against one armored

this is not a hypothetical worthy of thought

assuming anywhere near equivalent training, the unarmored person dies every time

Armor is really fucking good to have in a fight, that's why people wore it whenever they could. These weren't internet theorists we're talking about, every fucking professional in all of history wore the best damn armor he could afford.

>>51575677
>until the armored one swings wide

So you've never fought in real armor then.

Because when you fight in harness, you don't swing wide. You don't HAVE to swing wide, because you can use your armor to effectively ignore a bunch of ways your opponent could come at you. You keep your weapon tight and use it for control.

Of course, if your opponent has no armor and you're wearing harness, it doesn't matter because you just cut them down at your leisure.

>>51575765
This ignores just about any training and techniques meant for fighting armored opponents. Those are a thing. The armored person will have the advantage, but that doesn't mean its impossible for the unarmored one to win.

>>51575834
There will be a point where the opponent will slip up. Its an inevitability of the human condition.

Fighting an armored opponent unarmored is about waiting for that slip and making sure not to get your shit slapped in the meantime

>>51575873
>Fighting an armored opponent unarmored is about waiting for that slip and making sure not to get your shit slapped in the meantime
You say that like it's any sort of advantageous position. Like you won't ever slip up too. Like he doesn't have the advantage because of the protection his armor grants him.

>>51575908
Of course.

But the thing about how i see everyone argue it is that they try to parse it down to perfectly equal conditions besides the armor.

Thats not how combat due. Combat is largely about reading situation to avoid or take advantage of factors in the environment or weaknesses in the opponents abilities.

People always armchair theorize it down to a level that is never realistic, then try to pass it off as fact, and thats dumb.

>>51565734
This. It's really the only medium-fantasy piece of media that does almost everything right as far as ascetics go. On one side, you can use mundane armor and weapon and it's still viable. On the other side, you can run around with absurdly giant weapons and silly-looking armor and still kick just as much ass as Joe Sword-and-board. Everything is based on skill so you can just go ham with any build you want, no matter how weird. DaSIII definitely kicked both sides up a notch. The armor designs make me hard. Though it's a shame how they nerfed the everloving fuck out of magic and made quality builds the only way to go.

>>51575677
>I was saying the fast person would simply keep at range provoking attacks

He's not going to provoke an attack unless he's close enough that there's some chance of a successful hit. This means he has to successfully dodge out again from each and every attack he provokes, because failing once is likely to result in severe injury.

Meanwhile, it isn't hard to not swing wide. It's really easy even. Don't count on it happening any time soon. That's a lot of times our unarmoured fighter has to successfully bait and get away. He has to get lucky every time, the swordsman only really need sot get lucky once.

Baiting is also a matter of presenting a threat, forcing your opponent to act instead of simply standing there waiting for the perfect opportunity. Unfortunately the relatively short range of hands and feet or dagger means an unarmed fighter has a lot of killing ground to cover before he can start presenting a threat to a swordsman. That's a major complication for bait&dodge.

There's also the question of terrain, will it even be possible to keep dodging without getting backed into a corner? Is the footing sure enough that it's even possible to make the rapid changes in motion necessary? It may turn out that once you've stepped into sword range, you simply cannot reverse direction again before the swordsman has delivered at least one solid attack. If all you have to defend against that is a dagger, then you have a serious problem.

Swords can also be quite useful even if you're too close to swing them. A lever for wrestling, short ranged hilt blows, or purely slicing "steak knife" cuts. Even in a pure wrestling match the armour can assist, ground and pound face will break hands more than anything else if there's a visor in the way. So even if you do manage to avoid and step in, you're far from safe, you've merely managed to get out of the spacing where you're utterly helpless.

You can do it, but proper arms and armour give you a massive advantage.

>>51575965
Again, i'm not arguing that the armor isn't an advantage. I'm just saying that the fast do have techniques and tactics for dealing with armored opponents, disadvantageous as it is.

If the situation demands it, you do it, regardless of advantage.

>>51575873
>This ignores just about any training and techniques

How would you know? You don't have any training, and never learned any technique.

>The armored person will have the advantage, but that doesn't mean its impossible for the unarmored one to win

Nothing is impossible, but we're talking about a potentially-enormous advantage, depending on the kit in question.

>There will be a point where the opponent will slip up. Its an inevitability of the human condition.

Who says you won't "slip up" first? And if mistakes are inevitable, then why wouldn't you want the best possible insurance against "slipping up"? Like some damn good armor, for example?

>>51575937
>Combat is largely about reading situation to avoid or take advantage of factors in the environment or weaknesses in the opponents abilities.

Which both the armoured and unarmoured person can do, so that factor can usually be simplified away.

>>51576017
>You don't have any training, and never learned any technique

If we assume that the two are using regular Longswords and that the faster person only has gauntlets, i can think of a technique involving bashing in the armor using the cross guard. There is also a technique to use the pommel as an impromptu bludgeoning weapon as well, also to pound in the armor.

Once that armor is pressing against his ribs, he ain't gonna be too happy in it.

File: fczlc9hcuvpx.jpg (43KB, 389x554px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 389x554px

>>51576008
Yeah, were would anyone get the idea that you thought defeating an armoured opponent was simple?

>I was saying the fast person would simply keep at range provoking attacks until the armored one swings wide.

Oh

>>51576037
Yes, but armor or lack-there-of change how you react to those factors. That difference could easily change how the flow of battle goes.

>>51576008
>If the situation demands it, you do it, regardless of advantage.

Not if you're smart, you don't. If you're smart you run the fuck away, because trying to take on a soldier in full harness with your fists or a dagger or whatever is tantamount to suicide.

Also why there's not a lot of historical manual about it: nobody ever saw much point in training men to get themselves killed.

>>51576073
Yeah, the tactic itself is simple. Putting it into action is slightly more complicated.

or, put better, its easier said than done.

>>51560794
I want to have calm, caring sex with these elfs at the side of a lake waterfall.

Also, I like both. When I feeling more silly, I like the more stupid loli with giant sword just because it's ridiculous, not normally I will go for a normal sized person with a normal sized weapon. Also the small one normally doesnt use a sword, but a mace, hammer or other absurdly heavy looking weapon.

It all depends of the game and setting. I never do lanky warrior with a fast sword tho, I like a more strong or average competent joe than a fast killer.

>>51561819
Running is a special case though. Any muscle on the top is just more load for the legs to carry. As a runner you just want leg muscle and nohting else ,

Compere with say, getting great abs, is not gonna make your arms super slow when you're stabbing people or whatever.

>>51576067
>i can think of a technique

You ever done it, mate?

>>51576067
>regular Longswords

LOL obviously not

>>51576137
Its an actual technique that knights used, the first one. The second one i've actually done and practiced, but not to a great degree.

File: 1216-GQ-FEUB03-01-Usain-Bolt-02.jpg (599KB, 1616x2000px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 1616x2000px

>>51576132
>Any muscle on the top is just more load for the legs to carry.

Bolt seems to disagree.

Even a marathon runner needs enough torso strength to keep a proper posture.

You're right overall though, bulking up to the point where it's a disadvantage in a fight will be quite the challenge. Hell, even a 300lbs strongman can move quiet well (might be that you have to at that point, or you'll rip your own joints apart): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm1N9zdd00Q

It's just that past looking like a MMA fighter the extra mass and strength probably isn't worth the training necessary to obtain it, you'll get mroe by focusing on endurance, technique, or such instead. It'll probably be your weak point that gets you killed after all, not your strong point.

>>51576152
>The second one i've actually done and practiced, but not to a great degree.

Now try it against a domed 3mm steel plate and see how far you can dent it.

>>51575305
Because power lifters are not meant to fight.
The biggest guys in medieval times were smiths and lumberjacks, not knights. And you are as likely to be an underperforming soldier today if you're too big, as if you were to small.

>>51575677
In the times of full plate, knights were using short-range weapons like maces and beaks because they were good against armored combatants, and their own armor allowed them to pretty much ignore anyone not wearing armor.

>>51576132
Getting aesthetic abs may make you hurt yourself while punching.
You need a bit of fat in that core to cushion and lubricate the muscle fibrer.

>>51560794
Small frame + greatsword is as shit as all other examples of muscle-less person who still gets to be stronk - shit.
If there's an explanation - magic gauntlets of strength, telekinesis (tactile or otherwise), actually ridiculously ripped - I'm cool with it, but tiny people being strong only works for me in lighthearted stuff, because it's impossible to take seriously.

>>51573613

>Posting shit art

>>51578138
Tell that to Buakaw

>>51578609
His abs are solid 10/10 I was talking about the abs "normies" consider aesthetic. ie saran wrap dehydrated "8pack".