ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ways and means on May 23, 2011, 03:30:16 AM
-
Given the fact that Strength Powers give an automatic +1,2,3 respectivly to rolls modified by might it bring the question what rolls would be modified by might. I was wondering do people think throwing objects counts as something modified by might? If you do agree that throwing objects is something legitamatly modded by might do you think this the case for all objects or only for large objects such as cars?
-
I believe there was a thread a while ago, where the majority seemed to think, that it would not give a bonus to throwing, it only would let you throw heavier things.
While I agree, I also think, that if it does not necessarily give a bonus to your throwing roll, because you won't aim better, if you are stronger, I would certainly let you ignore part of the armor, because if you hit, you are still hitting with the full force of your strength. I am not sure, if the bonus damage part already applies to thrown attacks, but if not, you could add it here instead of the armor penetration thing. It would be almost the same, but it will do even more damage on targets that are not armored.
-
I've figured that might affected anything that would be thematically appropriate.
Flex while yelling at someone? +1 to intimidation roll - etc.
As for fighting... I would give someone shooting a bow a +1 to attack rolls with inhuman strength. If it's easier to hold the string back, it's easier to keep the bow steady and it's easier to aim.
I would say the same thing for someone shooting a sling shot.
For thrown objects - not so much. I think a +2 or more to the weapon value of the thrown object is already plenty of perk.
-
I'd give the +2 to bow damage but not the +1 to bow accuracy. As you may have noticed, I try to avoid random accuracy bonuses.
I can think of a lot of situations where Might would restrict an action, but only a few where it would modify. Pretty much all climbing would be Athletics modified by Might.
PS: Congrats on becoming an elite poster, BumblingBear. I saved a screenshot.
-
As for fighting... I would give someone shooting a bow a +1 to attack rolls with inhuman strength. If it's easier to hold the string back, it's easier to keep the bow steady and it's easier to aim.
Yes... and no. Of course it is going to be easier to keep a bow steady (although it should always be a +1 bonus. If you can benchpress a car or juggle locomotives, a bow will be equally simple in comparison), but in that case you would not be able to get the might damage bonus, because a bow would simply break, if you pull it back too far. Of course, if you create a bow specifically for someone with supernatural strength, you could use the damage bonus. But then your bonus strength would not assist you with a steadier aim. (Somehow, I have to think of Detritus Piecemaker now ;) )
Maybe that could be a general rule. You either don't have to worry about the weight of the thrown thing, so you can add your bonus to the throw roll, or you want to put your strength behind the throw, which will have a negative effect on your aim but if you hit, you will do massive damage. Using cars and other large things would then simply fall under the second category.
-
Suppose someone is trying to break a magical shield. They aren't attacking the character, just the shield.
So they use Fists modified by supernatural strength, right? But maybe in that situation, you get EITHER the bonus to hit, OR the bonus to damage, but not both? So they could break the shield, but the strength of the blow coming through after that would be very significantly reduced.
-
I'd give the +2 to bow damage but not the +1 to bow accuracy. As you may have noticed, I try to avoid random accuracy bonuses.
I can think of a lot of situations where Might would restrict an action, but only a few where it would modify. Pretty much all climbing would be Athletics modified by Might.
PS: Congrats on becoming an elite poster, BumblingBear. I saved a screenshot.
Thank you. :)
And for clarification for everyone - I don't think I explained myself very well.
A bow or slingshot I would /not/ give a +2 weapons bonus for.
The reason for this is simple - a bow maxes out at about 100 - 120 lb pull. Weapon 2 is plenty. And I think that thematically, a stronger individual pulling back a more powerful bow is a +1 to an attack roll. Think about it. A 100 lb bow can take down an elephant (if properly shot). I would say the bow itself is a weapon 3 rather than a weapon 2 at that point, and that the strength from inhuman strength would add a +1 to attack roll on it.
So instead of a +2 to weapon rating for a thrown weapon, you have a +1 to an attack roll and a weapon:3 instead of a weapon:2. (this is only for a VERY powerful bow made for the strong PC). This comes out to being slightly better than a +2 to weapon rating, but is still balanced.
Did this breakdown make any sense?
I am not comfortable giving attacks other than thrown weapons, melee, and fists an arbitrary +2 to weapon rating.
For instance - I don't care how hard a guy can pull back a bow - it won't penetrate tank armor. Ever.
-
A 100 lb bow can take down an elephant (if properly shot).
No, it can't. A 1.2 bore elephant gun with 25.000 j muzzle energy (4 times the average sniper rifle) might take down an elephant. Bows won't unless you shoot them in the eye with such an angle as to send the arrow to the brain - and that's a ridiculously impossible shot.
I don't care how hard a guy can pull back a bow - it won't penetrate tank armor. Ever.
With wooden arrows and wood/pastic bows? You're right. But a superalloy bow with a pull of 10 tons that shoots 5-pound arrow-sized tungsten darts filled with a half pound of high explosive are another matter entirely.
-
With wooden arrows and wood/pastic bows? You're right. But a superalloy bow with a pull of 10 tons that shoots 5-pound arrow-sized tungsten darts filled with a half pound of high explosive are another matter entirely.
Rambo.
-
No, it can't. A 1.2 bore elephant gun with 25.000 j muzzle energy (4 times the average sniper rifle) might take down an elephant. Bows won't unless you shoot them in the eye with such an angle as to send the arrow to the brain - and that's a ridiculously impossible shot.
With wooden arrows and wood/pastic bows? You're right. But a superalloy bow with a pull of 10 tons that shoots 5-pound arrow-sized tungsten darts filled with a half pound of high explosive are another matter entirely.
hmmm... i just remembered that my Giant needs a Ranged Weapon...
I guess it will be this bow...
or maybe something along the the assault crossbow that Detritus is using in the Discworld books.
just kidding
-
No, it can't. A 1.2 bore elephant gun with 25.000 j muzzle energy (4 times the average sniper rifle) might take down an elephant. Bows won't unless you shoot them in the eye with such an angle as to send the arrow to the brain - and that's a ridiculously impossible shot.
Fred Bear killed an Elephant on a hunt in 1964 with a #75 recurve. That's 25 pounds shy of a 100 lb draw.
Forgive me for being blunt, but you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
It may be arrogant to say so, but I know a /lot/ about weapons. If I state a fact about weapons, it's usually correct. I used to have to learn stuff like this for a living.
I used to own a #70 lb recurve, and I've shot lower curve elephant guns before. I actually put more faith in the bow if I had to bring an elephant down. A lot of people fail to realize that most organic/man made armor is easily penetrated by an arrow. Arrows go right through kevlar and even a #30 bow has the potential to send an arrow right through a deer like it's not even there as long as you don't hit bone.
With wooden arrows and wood/pastic bows? You're right. But a superalloy bow with a pull of 10 tons that shoots 5-pound arrow-sized tungsten darts filled with a half pound of high explosive are another matter entirely.
Something like that would have to be fired from a battleship, and probably still would not penetrate the tank.
Kinetic tension, the pull in a weapon has a point of diminishing returns. It's why they /don't/ have such weapons on battleships.
Additionally, a tank has geometry to deflect incoming shots and reactionary armor on the sides.
I've ridden on and in tanks while I was in the military. You really have to be around one for a while to understand the fantastic engineering.
Additionally, I was a Javelin gunner for a while too. In case you don't know what that is, it's a portable anti-tank weapon - one of the most expensive and sophisticated in the world. The reason it is such a potent weapon is because after locking onto your target's heat signature and firing, the missile actually travels up at about a 45 degree angle and then comes down on top of the tank where it is flat and the armor is weakest.
So in other words, no hard feelings but you're absolutely wrong on all counts.
-
Fred Bear killed an Elephant on a hunt in 1964 with a #75 recurve. That's 25 pounds shy of a 100 lb draw.
Forgive me for being blunt, but you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
It may be arrogant to say so, but I know a /lot/ about weapons. If I state a fact about weapons, it's usually correct. I used to have to learn stuff like this for a living.
I used to own a #70 lb recurve, and I've shot lower curve elephant guns before. I actually put more faith in the bow if I had to bring an elephant down. A lot of people fail to realize that most organic/man made armor is easily penetrated by an arrow. Arrows go right through kevlar and even a #30 bow has the potential to send an arrow right through a deer like it's not even there as long as you don't hit bone.
Something like that would have to be fired from a battleship, and probably still would not penetrate the tank.
Kinetic tension, the pull in a weapon has a point of diminishing returns. It's why they /don't/ have such weapons on battleships.
Additionally, a tank has geometry to deflect incoming shots and reactionary armor on the sides.
I've ridden on and in tanks while I was in the military. You really have to be around one for a while to understand the fantastic engineering.
Additionally, I was a Javelin gunner for a while too. In case you don't know what that is, it's a portable anti-tank weapon - one of the most expensive and sophisticated in the world. The reason it is such a potent weapon is because after locking onto your target's heat signature and firing, the missile actually travels up at about a 45 degree angle and then comes down on top of the tank where it is flat and the armor is weakest.
So in other words, no hard feelings but you're absolutely wrong on all counts.
I'll do everything I can to address the facts and not the tone.
Specifically: Yes. A bow can kill an elephant. Not instantly though. Not even close, really. If you're shooting a bow, you're killing it by bleeding it out. You're not penetrating bone, etc. You might be able to (but the deceleration cause by the shear amount of mass an elephant has would make it harder than on something like a deer where even then penetrating the shoulder blade or elbow can be tough). You're also shooting it much closer than you would with an elephant gun. This is dangerous at it kills less quickly. Theoretically, a charging elephant may kill you before it dies (depending on shot placement). It can be done, but it's a remarkable feat. The list includes Howard Hill (possibly the most remarkable archer to ever live), Fred Bear, and a woman who specifically trained to do so for several months (and who was a solid archer before she began training, of course).
And, while I tend to agree about the tank armor, I think it only applies to direct shots. A heavy arrow (tungsten, etc) launched upwards as in a volley to land on the weaker top armor of a tank, with an explosive tip, is plausible. Not likely, but plausible enough for a fantasy game. At that point, you're using the mass of the falling arrow as your propellant/damage. The strength is to launch it high enough to achieve terminal velocity.
-
Of course, the example I gave in the previous post of a plausible anti-tank bow wouldn't be used by the military because it's not an effective use of force. At all. If you can launch something massive enough to penetrate tank armor at terminal velocity (it can be done), you could probably direct that energy in such a way as to not use a bow (where you'll lose energy between the force required to draw it and the force exerted on the projectile). You'd be better off with a missile. Like the one you described.
-
I'll do everything I can to address the facts and not the tone.
Specifically: Yes. A bow can kill an elephant. Not instantly though. Not even close, really. If you're shooting a bow, you're killing it by bleeding it out. You're not penetrating bone, etc. You might be able to (but the deceleration cause by the shear amount of mass an elephant has would make it harder than on something like a deer where even then penetrating the shoulder blade or elbow can be tough). You're also shooting it much closer than you would with an elephant gun. This is dangerous at it kills less quickly. Theoretically, a charging elephant may kill you before it dies (depending on shot placement). It can be done, but it's a remarkable feat. The list includes Howard Hill (possibly the most remarkable archer to ever live), Fred Bear, and a woman who specifically trained to do so for several months (and who was a solid archer before she began training, of course).
Agreed. I was responding to a "fact" that a 100 lb bow "couldn't" kill an elephant. Considering that English warbows that were probably around 70-100 lbs could penetrate mail and even plate armor with bodkin points... well, it was really obvious misinformation.
And, while I tend to agree about the tank armor, I think it only applies to direct shots. A heavy arrow (tungsten, etc) launched upwards as in a volley to land on the weaker top armor of a tank, with an explosive tip, is plausible. Not likely, but plausible enough for a fantasy game. At that point, you're using the mass of the falling arrow as your propellant/damage. The strength is to launch it high enough to achieve terminal velocity.
Meh. You'd need a hell of a lot of explosive /with/ a shaped charge to even consider it. Terminal velocity for a free falling human is about 120 mph. The terminal velocity for a huge arrow would definitely be higher than that, but I would bet it wouldn't be above 300 mph.
To put that into comparison, a really fast modern compound bow shoots at about 200 fps, or about 140 mph. So /if/ your arrow is going 300 mph, that's about twice the speed of a REALLY fast arrow shot out of a bow. In reality, terminal velocity would probably be a lot lower than that depending on what kind of fletchings you use etc.
So while yes, it is plausible, it is barely plausible.
For a character with supernatural strength, it would make a lot more sense to just carry a huge, anti tank weapon or throw napalm on the tank.
Tanks are hot inside anyway. I you superheat the exterior of one, you can cook the crew inside- literally.
-
Fred Bear killed an Elephant on a hunt in 1964 with a #75 recurve. That's 25 pounds shy of a 100 lb draw.
Forgive me for being blunt, but you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
It may be arrogant to say so, but I know a /lot/ about weapons. If I state a fact about weapons, it's usually correct. I used to have to learn stuff like this for a living.
I used to own a #70 lb recurve, and I've shot lower curve elephant guns before. I actually put more faith in the bow if I had to bring an elephant down. A lot of people fail to realize that most organic/man made armor is easily penetrated by an arrow. Arrows go right through kevlar and even a #30 bow has the potential to send an arrow right through a deer like it's not even there as long as you don't hit bone.
Something like that would have to be fired from a battleship, and probably still would not penetrate the tank.
Kinetic tension, the pull in a weapon has a point of diminishing returns. It's why they /don't/ have such weapons on battleships.
Additionally, a tank has geometry to deflect incoming shots and reactionary armor on the sides.
I've ridden on and in tanks while I was in the military. You really have to be around one for a while to understand the fantastic engineering.
Additionally, I was a Javelin gunner for a while too. In case you don't know what that is, it's a portable anti-tank weapon - one of the most expensive and sophisticated in the world. The reason it is such a potent weapon is because after locking onto your target's heat signature and firing, the missile actually travels up at about a 45 degree angle and then comes down on top of the tank where it is flat and the armor is weakest.
So in other words, no hard feelings but you're absolutely wrong on all counts.
Watch your tone, dude. You've been warned about this before.
-
Watch your tone, dude. You've been warned about this before.
Noted. Especially since it appears the aggrieved parties would prefer to tattle to mods rather than just say, "I was wrong".
;)
Ok - I've officially retracted the claws.
For future reference though, anyone reading this who has a problem with my tone, all you have to do is PM me saying that you believe I was over the top or hurtful and I will /quickly/ edit my post.
-
To make up for my lapse of judgment in how I presented my argument before, I am compiling a list of all the ways that an inhumanly/supernaturally/mythically strong character could take out a tank.
-Carrying C4
-Throwing large amounts of napalm on the tank
-Hitting a track with something at least weapon:4. An I-beam would definitely do it.
-Carrying a 500 lb bomb to throw like a football.
-Throwing a car or two (the kinetic shock would still cause stress to those inside)
-Carrying an anti tank weapon like a crew served, tripod mounted cannon
-Wielding a huge sword (for giants) that is like a warden's sword and can increase in weapons rating. A weapon: 6 or weapon: 7 would prabably penetrate the armor.
-Grappling and actually ripping it apart. I would imagine that a character who is strong enough to rip a vault door apart could damage a tank too.
:)
-
To make up for my lapse of judgment in how I presented my argument before, I am compiling a list of all the ways that an inhumanly/supernaturally/mythically strong character could take out a tank.
-Carrying C4
-Throwing large amounts of napalm on the tank
-Hitting a track with something at least weapon:4. An I-beam would definitely do it.
-Carrying a 500 lb bomb to throw like a football.
-Throwing a car or two (the kinetic shock would still cause stress to those inside)
-Carrying an anti tank weapon like a crew served, tripod mounted cannon
-Wielding a huge sword (for giants) that is like a warden's sword and can increase in weapons rating. A weapon: 6 or weapon: 7 would prabably penetrate the armor.
-Grappling and actually ripping it apart. I would imagine that a character who is strong enough to rip a vault door apart could damage a tank too.
:)
I am going to add throwing the tank at another tank and punching the tank in the canon.
-
Actually, BB, it was reported by someone who hasn't even posted in this thread. Just a reader who noticed something out of whack. I know that may seem uncool to you since the person you were sniping at didn't do it, but look at another way....the people in the room where there's an argument can feel more AUUUUGH than the people in the argument.
Unfortunately....
Strike two for continuing to snipe after being told to stop.
BB, for future reference, just to be clear...you stating your credentials is completely kosher. It's good to know that sort of stuff. I don't want that to get confused with the tone issue...the tone was mild compared to many places on the net, it's just not allowed here.
-
A 150 cm arrow that's 1 cm thick and is made of tungsten weighs about 5 pounds. Tungsten terminal velocity (for a man-shaped piece, not a streamlined arrow) is about 1350 mph. So tungsten arrow, given enough energy, could travel well over half a mile per second. Such an arrow begins to look suspiciously like an APFSDS projectile.
That said, you'd need bows of special materials to achieve that. It is rather more expedient to carry actual antitank weaponry around.
-
So, getting back to the original question, here's my response:
When contemplating whether or not a particular skill roll should qualify as being modified by Might and therefore get a bonus due to Strength powers, ask yourself the reverse question, first. That is, should a person with a low Might get a penalty when making the exact same roll? If so, then you probably have a good argument for gaining the bonus. But just keep in mind that "modify" works both ways, so if a penalty for low Might doesn't make sense, then a bonus for high Might (or Inhuman or greater Strength) probably doesn't either.
-
So, getting back to the original question, here's my response:
When contemplating whether or not a particular skill roll should qualify as being modified by Might and therefore get a bonus due to Strength powers, ask yourself the reverse question, first. That is, should a person with a low Might get a penalty when making the exact same roll? If so, then you probably have a good argument for gaining the bonus. But just keep in mind that "modify" works both ways, so if a penalty for low Might doesn't make sense, then a bonus for high Might (or Inhuman or greater Strength) probably doesn't either.
I quite like this way at looking at things, so a person throwing a car by this logic would gain an advantage but one with a spear wouldn't (as low might makes the first one impossible and it definatly would be easier to throw something as big as a car acuratly with more strength.
-
Actually, BB, it was reported by someone who hasn't even posted in this thread. Just a reader who noticed something out of whack. I know that may seem uncool to you since the person you were sniping at didn't do it, but look at another way....the people in the room where there's an argument can feel more AUUUUGH than the people in the argument.
Unfortunately....
Strike two for continuing to snipe after being told to stop.
BB, for future reference, just to be clear...you stating your credentials is completely kosher. It's good to know that sort of stuff. I don't want that to get confused with the tone issue...the tone was mild compared to many places on the net, it's just not allowed here.
Ok Mickey Finn - apologies as always.
Although - it's been a year since I had to be nudged by a mod so that has to count for something, right? :)
I think I (mistakenly) took offense by Priscellie calling me, "dude" in that context. In my neck of that woods, that kind of terminology is highly insulting and demeaning.
I am sure that I misunderstood.
This site has the most fair modding of any other forum I've ever posted on.
Apologies to all the posters who witnessed this temporary lapse in decorum.
I've been temporarily banned from the forum that I usually let loose my inner snark-demon, so I have a lot of pent up angst right now. :P
I didn't name myself "Bumbling" for nothing.
-
I'll try to remember the Dude thing, because I almost did it too...Priscilla and I are originally from the same town.* ;)
Very much appreciative of you as a person, BB. Thanks for recognizing we "mod indiscriminatly."
*Didn't know each other until Jim, though.
-
Yeah, in other parts of the US, "dude" is a friendly term.
Anyway, when it comes to letting Strength Powers modify an effect, I typically ask if being strong would actually help (and also use the "would being weak make it worse" benchmark). Another general rule of thumb is that I don't let it apply to attacks or defense (unless you're defending something like Increased Gravity) for the sake of balance. In other situations like needing to jump something (stronger would modify Athletics), intimidation (he can break a man's spine with one hand so we should listen), and breaking into homes (he can just push the door open or pull the lock off) I'd allow it if the player could justify a way to do so.
-
Yeah, apologies for the "dude" thing. I've always heard it used in friendly contexts or as an interjection. I wasn't aware there were regions of the country where it had a demeaning implication.
-
So, getting back to the original question, here's my response:
When contemplating whether or not a particular skill roll should qualify as being modified by Might and therefore get a bonus due to Strength powers, ask yourself the reverse question, first. That is, should a person with a low Might get a penalty when making the exact same roll? If so, then you probably have a good argument for gaining the bonus. But just keep in mind that "modify" works both ways, so if a penalty for low Might doesn't make sense, then a bonus for high Might (or Inhuman or greater Strength) probably doesn't either.
Hence the awesome group story-telling process of Fate system. I recently set up a villain with Inhuman Strength and decided in combat he would fight with Fists specifically to bring his Might to advantage...just punishing blows and kicks and stomps and haymakers and...well, you get the idea. But then I said to myself, "Self, why wouldn't this character, or any character able to modify an attack with Might, ALWAYS attack like this. Twould get boring." And I guess it might, but still makes sense how a Troll would fight as opposed to Jet Li or Mike Tyson. Maybe a counter is that a clever opponent would have easier Declarations or Manuevers against an attacker fighting like that.
-
Answer: because sometimes you're aiming to trip someone (maneuver) and can't bring that extra strength to bear, or you're fighting a mortal and don't want to just pancake them, or you just don't want quite as much risk of breaking your weapon... And sometimes you're fighting a martial arts master who makes a "Water Stance" fists maneuver, invokes it for effect, and suddenly your bonus from might is reducing your attack rolls instead of increasing them...
A lot of the time, yeah, if you've got might higher than fists/weapons (either through strength powers or just plain skill), you'll want to attack in a way that lets you get some use out of all that extra power. And sometimes doing that will backfire. If there's no chance of it ever backfiring, though - then that is, indeed, boring, and shouldn't be done.
-
A 150 cm arrow that's 1 cm thick and is made of tungsten weighs about 5 pounds. Tungsten terminal velocity (for a man-shaped piece, not a streamlined arrow) is about 1350 mph. So tungsten arrow, given enough energy, could travel well over half a mile per second. Such an arrow begins to look suspiciously like an APFSDS projectile.
I do not wish to get into a snark-fest here, but I feel this does need to be corrected. Terminal velocity is a physics/fluid dynamics term, which in lay terms is when a falling object has reached maximum velocity because the downward force (gravity and the upward force (drag) are equal, resulting in no additional acceleration on the falling object.
The material of the falling object has nothing to do with it. What can impact the terminal velocity of an object is its shape and size. A dense, streamlined material like a 1 oz. lead deer slug will typically have a significantly higher terminal velocity and a cardboard box which also has a weight of 1 oz. simply because the surface area of the cardboard box relative to the mass of the box is much greater.
As an aside, the top speed of many falling objects close to the surface of the Earth is ~200mph. The closer something gets to the surface, the greater the density of the air which the object is falling through, which results in greater drag and more energy is required to displace dense air vs. 'thin' air. This is also one of the reasons why parachutes are less effective if/when deployed at greater altitudes, and why some of the speed for very high terminal velocities are recorded at high altitudes (100,000+ ft).
-Cheers
-
The material of the falling object has nothing to do with it. What can impact the terminal velocity of an object is its shape and size. A dense, streamlined material like a 1 oz. lead deer slug will typically have a significantly higher terminal velocity and a cardboard box which also has a weight of 1 oz. simply because the surface area of the cardboard box relative to the mass of the box is much greater.
I agree with all of this except the first sentence. All other things being equal, the material that is denser will fall faster (same drag, greater mass and therefore gravitational force, therefore greater terminal velocity). In addition, how rough the surface of the object is will affect drag.
As an example, consider a 2-inch sphere made of balsa wood, and a 2-inch sphere made of lead. Same size, same shape, but the lead sphere will not only have a greater gravitational force acting on it, but also a bit less drag, despite having the same shape. Material does matter. It's just not the only factor.
-
I agree with all of this except the first sentence. All other things being equal, the material that is denser will fall faster (same drag, greater mass and therefore gravitational force, therefore greater terminal velocity). In addition, how rough the surface of the object is will affect drag.
As an example, consider a 2-inch sphere made of balsa wood, and a 2-inch sphere made of lead. Same size, same shape, but the lead sphere will not only have a greater gravitational force acting on it, but also a bit less drag, despite having the same shape. Material does matter. It's just not the only factor.
The material itself doesn't make a difference, it is the properties of the material as both of us have observed. Whether that material is a tungsten, lead, uranium or gold-alloy, if the mass relative to surface area is that same, the object will have the same terminal velocity. Also the gravitional force acting on a falling object on Earth will always be the same, since the relative gravitational force exerted by the Earth's mass doesn't change, hence the acceleration due to gravity being a constant of ~32 ft/sec sq. or ~9.8 m/sec sq.
Also please note I'm not using the term density, but mass relative to surface area. A dense metal like tungsten, lead, uranium or gold like I previously mentioned will, depending on how the object is space, occupy a significantly less volume of space than an object made of balsa pine which has the same mass. However, if one were to take a 1 kg mass of lead and arrange it into a single sheet covering a large area, assuming that the lead sheet doesn't tear, it would have a lower terminal velocity than a 1 kg mass of balsa pine in a single block, assuming that that surface area of the lead sheet is greater than that of the block of balsa pine. Generally speaking, denser materials are going to have a higher mass to surface area ratio than less dense materials, and will therefore have higher terminal velocities since the area of the object will be (usually) less and therefore less subject to drag. It is not true in all cases though.
-Cheers
-
I said "tungsten terminal velocity (for a man-shaped piece)". I.e. take some tungsten and make a statue out of it - I wanted to use existing numbers for humans to make a quick calculation, not recalculate for a tungsten arrow. Since it has a density 20 times that of an actual human (and thus 20 times the weight), the statue tops out at 4,47 times the terminal velocity. Given that a human diving head-first tops at about 300 mph, we get a bit over 1300 mph for the tungsten statue. Now streamline the same material into an arrow that has about 1/6 the projected area for its mass that a human would have. That's another 2,5x increase in terminal velocity. We are now looking at roughly 3250 mph terminal velocity, or close to a mile a second. Of course, said object is not going to actually reach that speed unless you drop it from about 100 miles up.
Now, to impart the same kinetic energy on an arrow weighing 5 pounds, you need 2.600.000 joules. For comparison purposes, the muzzle energy of a .50 BMG round fired from typical HMGs is 15.000 joules, the muzzle energy of an AK-47 round is 2.000 joules and a typical medieval arrow has about 1500 joules kinetic energy when fired.
Giving such kinetic energy however is difficult. You'd need a bow with a draw weight of 75 tons to manage 2/3 of it. If you are a giant and get a big metal bow made out of a huge laminated spring, you can reach those draw weights. For human-sized nonmagical bows the numbers are problematic. The typical laminated spring used in car suspensions could provide only about 2,5 tons of draw weight in a bow that is still sized for humans. You'd need considerably more advanced materials than steel and a good bit of engineering to get to the needed 75 tons. This doesn't mean it's impossible. It just means the bow would be a really, really expensive custom work and it would only work for someone of your mythic strength. You could not hand it off to someone else and hope they can use it - even guys with supernatural strength could not hope to draw it.
OTOH, it should be fairly simple to give vampires or other strong non-people powerful bows. 2,5 tons of draw weight is right in the alley of inhuman strength so go make some bows out of laminated metal springs and give them thin steel arrows.