Can sieges withstand magical assault?

[Derren]

I was actually referring to archer's and mages of near equivalent levels (or, as is much more likely) having more higher level archers than higher level mages - in relative terms, it's easier to train an archer than a wizard or sorcerer.

And much easier to counter. A wind wall and all archers are useless. The real problem are the enemy wizards when they bombard each other with long range spells, but as these spells are mostly energy based there are protections against that. The defending mages have the disadvantage that they can't rethreat, can't choose the time of battle and have to protect the fortification from harm.

 

[VirgilCaine]

I was actually referring to archer's and mages of near equivalent levels (or, as is much more likely) having more higher level archers than higher level mages - in relative terms, it's easier to train an archer than a wizard or sorcerer.

Now, if the power levels are drastically unequal...well then yes, I suppose a number of high level mages vs. a few low level archers is not going to turn out well for the archers - but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about sieges in general terms.

Anyway, if the attackers have an arch-mage, why can't the defenders have an arcane archer?

Arch-mage? Hey, now, none of that FR stuff.

Power levels isn't the problem. Ring of blinking and a cloak of displacement and gee, thats two percentile rolls before you take into account wind wall or protection from arrows or a personal wind wall spell. Magic arrows don't negate concealment or spells or anything, just DR. Maybe the Arcane Archer would have something, but run of the mill Fighters (of which there will be more than Arcane Archers) won't be able to do anything.