Can sieges withstand magical assault?

[Sir ThornCrest]

Only a couple of advantages goes to attacking force

the attacking force knows where & when the fights going to happen, & they dictate the speed/tempo of the fight. After all they get to chose when & where to advance. That being said, concludes their advantages. The castle force has defense already in place on all sides, no matter where the attack comes from, a quick shuffle and they are ready. The attacking forces will have little to no cover, as where the castle force will have 75% too 100% cover giving them a hella AC bonus. The attacking force may try to use machines. These machines are easily crippled if not destroyed. Yes the attacking force can attack the walls of a castle, but these walls are usually built to withstand attacks ie the purpose of their existence. The castle force has many angles from which to fire arrows etc. vs. the attacking force has only one-standing on the ground. The castle forces arrows will fire farther do to heigth advantage and subsiquently the attackers must be closer to make their arrows strike.....ADVANTAGE CASTLE FORCE IF ARMIES ARE PRETTY MUCH EQUAL!

The attacking force may have spell casters able to cast acid/firballs but if they are of equal level the defenders have had a long time to place protection on the castle vs said attacks. All in all the attacking force must be superior to even challenge the castle force

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

Well Said Painandgreed!

I and all logical beings should agree, although its interesting to here the counter arguement with the influx of magic.

Sir ThornCrest

 

[Hitokiri]

Well, if we are looking at a standard castle straight out of the dark ages, then I doubt that the defenders could win if they were being opposed by a force with a mid to high level spellcaster. HOWEVER, I think it would be foolish to assume that castles would be designed exactly the same in a world where magic was prevelent. Castles would be designed to deal with magical assaults. The arcitechture, building, and running of a castle would have to take all of this into account. Castles would be designed to prevent ay single spell from overwhelming them. The outer wall, for example, could actually be a series of 2 or 3 walls, with only a small gap in between. A single disintigrate spell may put a hole large enough to walk an elephant through the first wall, but as it only affects a single target would leave the remaining walls standing firm. Stoneshape could be thwarted by placing a thin shhet of metal down the center of a wall. The ramparts and parapet could include a stone roof, perfect for protecting the troops against call lightning. Arrow slit may have shutters covered in soaked leather that can be tightly shut to prevent an incoming fireball, lightning, or other attack spells, as well as providing a barrier to intruders in gaseous form. Perhaps the building material itself could be enchanted to give the walls some sort of anti-magic qualities or better saving throws. Structures would be reinforced to prevent collapse from earthquakes.

And let us not forget the castles own defenders should have some sort of magic. The attackers will have to worry about those same attack spells raining down on them as they approach. HOw long will an army last if the defenders get a few volunteers to sneak into the enemy camp using invisibility and assassinate the leaders. Even a spell like bless would have a huge impact on a battle (hey, those +1s are nothing to sneeze at when you are talking about a single spell effecting the whole castle garrison when they gather around their priest). Entangle and other low level spells could easily break up an assault before the footmen ever reach the castle walls. As I see it, the attacking spell casters will have to worry about defense just as much as the defenders, and they dont have big walls to hide behind!

Now in a world where magic rare, then a single mage could AND SHOULD have a major impact on such a scenario. But then again, such a conflict would be the stuff of legends, not a common occurance.

 

[IronWolf]

I would certainly think they could withstand a magical attack (if they were prepared to begin with). The defenders will have mages of their own to counter spells or possibly fix what is destroyed by the opposing magic. The defenders will target the spellcasters of the attackers at any given opportunity (and vice versa, but the defenders should have walls to help defend their own spellcasters).

 

[BiggusGeekus]

First check out Castillo de San Marcos. It was built by the Spanish in the USA (Florida) in the late 17th century. The walls are low, but thick and its in a star pattern so the cannon could have a wide arc of fire. That might address some of the issues raised in this thread ... or it might just show off my web-fu to no effect, only time will tell.

I think San Marcos is pretty cool for what it is, but it doesn't really have that Minas Tirith/Camelot/Big Honking Fantasy Castle thing going for it.

The "problem" is that setting up fortifications, even hasty ones, is a pretty good thing to do in a conflict in real life. The bad news is that in D&D you want the players to beat up the people in a fortification because starting out the campaign with "The goblins catch you in a crossfire with their shortbows, your party dies in the rain alone and unloved" ... kind of sucks.

My personal suggestion would be to invent new magical dealie-wackers to aid defense if you plan to have a lot of sieges. You need to defend against: flight, artillery, and stealth. Also, any magical world at some point or another in its history is going to have a "frag the spellcaster" policy. How this is resolved or even IF it is resoved is up to the DM.

 

[Derren]

I don't think a castle would survive.

Countering magic can only be done up to a specific range which is lower than the range of many attack spells unless you have the exact same spells prepared than the attacker. And there are many ways to destroy a castle.

Targeting the spellcaster wouldn't work too. Wind Wall vs archers, invisibility vs everything.

 

[Hitokiri]

Oh, I should also point out that any sufficiently high level character could also have a large impact on such a battle. a high level theif wouldn't need magic to sneak into a castle and lower the drawbridge, nor to sneak out of a castle and backstab the enemy mage. Assuming parity of forces (including magical) I fail to see how the walls could have a DETRIMENTAL effect, which would have to be the case for the attackers to win, since it is by and large the only difference between the two forces.

 

[azmodean]

What BiggusGeekus is talking about is called a Trace Italienne, which became popular when the standing walls of 'classical' castles were discovered to be very vunerable to cannon fire. The Trace Italienne relies on huge earthen embankments to defend against cannon fire and overlapping fields of fire useable by the defenders to keep foot troops and calvary away. The typical means used to attack them was to use engineers to build trenches in a zig-zag manner, approaching closer and closer to the fortification while shielding the people in the trenches from gunfire and cannonfire. Once close enough, they would bring foward their own cannon through the trenches, which would be effective at close range.

Man, and I thought I wasn't paying attention in that "history of modern warfare" class.

I'm definitely in the "magic equals out" camp, I just didn't want to bias the initial post in my direction. Not to say that magic, used in an overpowering or clever way, wouldn't tip the balance.

 

[Storminator]

Considering equal odds isn't very significant. Most every siege is based on outnumbering the defenders.

That said, how do you maintain the siege? How do you keep all the soldiers alive in a giant mass around the castle? It's the soldiers out in the field that are sitting ducks.

And with magic, there's no practical way to starve out the defenders.
So you're left with an assault. And in a well designed castle, the defenders can bring numbers to bear on any breach in the defenses, giving the defenders the advantage.

Better off hiring a bunch of high level adventurers to ninja the place.

PS

 

[Stone Angel]

I voted yes but after reading everyones posts I have switched to maybe. A magical assult would probably give an advantage to the attacker, as Crothian said eventually. Also I assume that this is in a setting that is fairly common. The castle itself having wards and magic of it's own in its makeup and build.

Strategy is also involved one would think that they would have whole battallions of counterspelling wizards and sorcerers to avoid those pesky destructions and orbs of destruction.

Interesting poll


The Seraph of Earth and Stone