Quote Originally Posted by Calthropstu View Post
See, now this I have no problem at all with. If magic had little in the way of battle application, but huge gains in other ways that would be different. But if magic becomes practical for in person battle, if it's not better than swinging a sword and carrying a shield, wth is the point? Pay a soldier to protect you would be far more cost effective so you could direct your studies elsewhere for more practical purposes a la developing nukes.

Why on earth would a militia pay any more to a battle wizard than a sword swinger if they are relatively equal in power? And if there isn't more to be had, why specialize in something that is as useful as swinging a sword.

Either magic is more capable in battle, or it isn't used in battle. I see little in between.
Things can be different without being better. If a balanced army with a mix of mages and martials is best then they both have their uses, and if one is rarer than the other they will receive more pay even if they are individual no more useful than the other.

For example, a real army needs all sorts of support rolls, mechanics, medics, radio operators, even cooks and janitors. None of these people kick as much but as soldiers, but they are still needed to win the war, and if it is an obscure field or requires a fancy degree they will still be paid more than the grunts.