For anyone unfamiliar with the term, a metiocracy is a system wherein acheivement and reward are based solely on merit. In other words, the top in all fields and areas are alway the best.
Now this may seem self-evident - that the best should rise to the top is difficult to argue against - yet in the real world this rarely, if ever, is the case. Those in positions of power and influence are most often there through a combintion of politics, luck, and nepotism.
This is especially true of the middle ages and should be reflected in D&D, yet the opposite is virtually always the case. The tops in any field are always those of highest level, which reflects the fact that they are the best at what they do. The top gaurdsman is always the highest level, his second is next highest, etc.
What I would like to see in D&D is a bell-curve of achievement that better models real-life: the least qualified sit at the thinest ends - both top and bottom - with the level of competancy increasing unitl it peaks in the middle with those hard-working people who really know what they are doing and what's going on but who lack the connections and guile to slip in to the upper echelons of their field.
Now this may seem self-evident - that the best should rise to the top is difficult to argue against - yet in the real world this rarely, if ever, is the case. Those in positions of power and influence are most often there through a combination of politics, luck, and nepotism.
So, they are good at politics, for example. Or very lucky. Or good at making friends in important places.
This is especially true of the middle ages and should be reflected in D&D, yet the opposite is virtually always the case. The tops in any field are always those of highest level, which reflects the fact that they are the best at what they do. The top guardsman is always the highest level, his second is next highest, etc.
With cultures based on strength, such as orcs, this makes sense, especially since, in D&D, the most capable are always good at fighting, too.
That said, you are probably right. I have never even considered this matter. It is one of those "of course" things, now that you have mentioned it. Thanks for that.
The first arguable point is how is the best defined? Rewards and merits or is it to be defined by levels? In both cases, there have been products released for D&D through the years where the person at the top wasn't the best per say. I have seen cities were the person at the top was really the most conniving, manipulative person and not the most merited person. I have seen guilds where the person in charge was only 5th level while they had many high level characters at their disposal.
Level alone is not an indication of the merits of a person, but a reflection of who well suited they are to accomplishing their task. The leadership qualities of a person are not reflected by level, level reflects who well the person can use power and does not make them an effective leader.
I can see where you are coming from with comments about the military organization but aren't most military units based on merit? Who get's promoted in the police force, the guy who sat on his rear and ate donuts or the guy who got an award from the mayor for busting the drug syndicate? More than likely, the guy who busted the drug syndicate has some skill (levels) behind his belt to back up his actions.
Though, I can see an argument that some of the lower ranks in the organization could be of a higher level by the class system. By today’s standards most militaries will try and weed out individuals that try to stay at a lower level rank to avoid more responsibility (ie, the guy who wants to do the action filled stuff of the lower ranks without doing paper/administrative work). I was once told by someone who really loved studying WW I/II stuff that the German’s once had a rank that translated as 'lifetime corporal' - these are the guys that were great soldiers that never wanted to be promoted too high. I haven't really searched around to see if this was true or not, but I'm sure all sorts of people like this existed, especially in medieval times.
I can see where you are coming from, but I think you suggest an over-inflation of the problem (hyperbolic). Likewise, most high levels are stated as such not because level=merit=leadership, but because most DMs use level to handle PCs (how else will you stop rampaging PCs unless the people in high places can stop them?).
A perfect example of that in modern day would be the military. In your average unit the best person, as far as capability goes, is usually the sarge. Not the captain and certainly not the lieutenants.
Actually, our military is heavily based on merit. What you're looking at is the difference between enlistment and officers.
In our military, sergeant is (more or less) the best rank you can achieve without going to officer school. There are various flavors of sergeant to confuse things, but in general. Thus, the Sarge is usually the best and most experienced man in the squad. The next step up is the Lieutenant -- which is the rawest, youngest, and worst-prepared of the officer ranks. Hopefully, with a little experience, the looie will be promoted up to Corporal or higher within a few years.
Likewise, incompetents (as opposed to the merely inexperienced) are generally either removed or shunted off to less and less important posts. Yes, you will find backwaters with a higher than average percentage of the shiftless or stupid, but that is precisely because it is a backwater post.
Contrary to popular belief, our Generals and Admirals are mostly very experienced commanders with excellent records. While politics plays a role, the high ranks of our (that is, the American) military are mostly (because there's always an exception) filled with good leaders.
Now, that's an effect of the modern military structure, which mostly avoids bribery and usually doesn't care who your father is. With the Imperial British military of Victorian England, and you're perfectly right -- most high ranking officers bought their way into it or got there by having friends in high places. In fact, these two factors were strongly linked, given the aristocratic traditions of the time.
Sorry to play the spelling lawyer, but I think a system in which achievement is rewarded is called 'meritocracy', i.e. the power to merit.
Interesting post though.
For one, spellcasters become immensely powerful at higher levels. A high-level wizard could supplant an entire trading company with teleportation spells. The wizard could also outdo an entire craftsman's guild with reshape object and various conjuring effects. A sorcerer or bard with the appropriate spells could replace an orchestra alone, and could will into being works of art through illusions in seconds. An enchanter could take the more direct approach and just usurp the power base of a city through magical control. The power of spellcasters enables them to have such a great deal of influence that they needn't be the ones "in charge" to run an organization, city, or even a nation.
While you would be right in the sense that the more manipulative individuals will rise to the top, the merit of spellcasting can make this all the easier for those who know how. And yes, the guildmaster and the mayor and the feudal lord will likely be lower level than some of those under their command, but the power behind the throne, often the BBEG that the PCs concern themselves with, is controlling these public officials.
And this needn't apply to spellcasters alone. A high-level rogue could blackmail an official, or simply threaten them with assassination. A monster with possession abilities (ghost) or mind control (Illithid) could likewise assume a position of power through a relatively weaker host or minion. A high-level warrior can threaten through force of arms, either through personal threats or training a personal army to apply political pressure. There is a reason that the Leadership feat gets better with higher levels instead of higher skill ranks.
In the real world, there are no spellcasters. Trained warriors are uncommon and less useful when automatic guns and guided missals come into play. Assassins are still valid threats, but they rarely act in their own interests, instead serving someone cunning enough to keep them dependent and expendable if they attempt betrayal. Monsters don't exist (exorcism and other practices aside) in the real world. And not a whole lot has changed in that regard over the past 1,000 years. Again, low-level leaders are realistic, but it's often hard to apply real-world examples to fantasy settings.
The leadership qualities of a person are not reflected by level, level reflects who well the person can use power and does not make them an effective leader.
Unless the person has the leadership feat, of course. Making pretty much everything a function of level causes this kind of problems.
My idea: in the usual pseudo-mediaeval kingdom there are in fact two governments.
There’s the everyday, mundane government of aristocrats and councilors and the king, who raise taxes and build bridges and fight off orcs and bandits. There’s little relationship between level and power.
And then there’s the other government, a secret council of high-level NPCs, who deal with the really important things.
As for the captain of the city guard being tougher than the average patrolman, well that doesn’t necessarily make him the best suited for the job. Perhaps the LG lvl 1 warrior is a lot better suited than his corrupt NE lvl 6 boss.
In any case, D&D is not a meritocracy, although it has some of these elements. When I rolled up my typical hamlet, the lvl 1 aristocrat mayor was in charge, while the lvl 16 commoner village elder has no more than the respect of his peers.
But if you look at some fantasy world, Forgotten Realms in particular you will find lvl 20 fighter Kings, successful adventurers becoming lords (Knights of Myth Drannor) and every important NPC being high level. This is a staple of heroic fantasy where Farmer Giles takes up a sword, slays the dragon (or whatever) and gains his fame and fortune, perhaps with a title to boot. In the darker side of D&D corrupt and incompetent barons rule with an ironfist, while the better suited robin hood becomes an outlaw. And then it's up to the PCs to make things right.
Most settings have elements of both these styles, but you're free to emphasize one or another. I prefer the darker one myself.
Translate that to D&D, and you should have the 1st level warriors, a 5th level fighter as the sarge, and the "captain" or whatever might very well be a 3rd level aristocrat. Sounds more realistic, anyway...
Agreed. The upper class will start as officers while everyone else starts as enlisted. Just look at how the British Empire use to run their military.
What I would like to see in D&D is a bell-curve of achievement that better models real-life: the least qualified sit at the thinest ends - both top and bottom - with the level of competancy increasing unitl it peaks in the middle with those hard-working people who really know what they are doing and what's going on but who lack the connections and guile to slip in to the upper echelons of their field.
That would work for the level or skill rank that applies to the job. However, the less skilled people at the top had to get there by using something. Excluding nepotism, perhaps these "upper management" types reached their high position by having a high level in aristocrat or rogue. They should at least have a good charisma and a several ranks in diplomacy.
The PCs will usually end up aligned with or against the "top" characters. The PCs don't generally like receiving orders from a level 3 Aristocrat who just so happens to be the king. The campaign loses some of its glamour when the quests come from a level 5 Bard, as opposed to a majestic level 20 Paladin.
This is especially evident in the case of BBEGs. In a more real universe, sure, the BBEG would be more likely to be a level 2 Aristocrat surrounded by level 15 Golem bodyguards. In a fantasy world, though, people don't like the idea of fighting through tough bodyguards to find that the BBEG himself is a pushover (who's really good at running an organization). It's much more preferable that the bodyguards are just a prelude to the power of the BBEG.
So although it may not be realistic to have the most dangerous enemies at the top, it makes for a better storyline.
Getting high up occurs in one of three ways: working hard and get high up, having connections in the higher places to pull you up, or conniving your way in. Working hard and conniving both require the ability to convince the people around you that you are capable, and require high skill modifiers, which can only be attainable by having a high level.
However, it is certainly true that the fat mayor of the town certainly cant take as many shots or hit as many times as the lowliest construction worker. He definitely is a higher level since he managed to go to the top with his skill, not brawn. This is where D&D is a bit unrealistic (in d20 modern terms), a person might be able to make computers and bombs very well, but not hit a lot or be able to be hit. So one class specifically geared towards skill aside from expert might not be out of question to represent people such as a mayor.
Still, there's plenty of room in the game for a 1st level Warrior to be in command of a force of 5th level Fighters because he is the brother of someone important, or because he has scrounged up blackmail about the Fighters, or simply because the Fighters too concerned with honing their skills to bother taking the lead. The PCs would probably sense that they could take the Warrior out easily, but they'd have to get through his men, who have a vested interest in keeping him alive and in charge, even if they don't like him very much.
Consider too that gaining levels is dangerous. The guardsman who spends his days carousing in the tavern might not be as honorable as the one who tracks the smugglers to their lair and threatens to expose them, but he's got a much longer life expectancy. The captain may not want to promote the carouser, but he might not have any other choice.
I once had a sergeant who had combat experience in Vietnam and this guy had experienced some unlucky timing i.e. happened to be in the wrong place when Russia invaded and had to find the long way home. I found that he was highly respected by his superiors (at least the intelligent ones) and they always included him in their plans even when excluding the other sergeants. The thing is, his schooling was minimal and he was not so interested in general administration and felt that the time until his retirement was not so long, so he did not study to become an officer. I would have preferred to be with him in the field rather than most of the officers because he knew every trick in the book and would happily sleep concealed in a nearby trench to keep an eye on us rookies manning a likely engagement check point when he was actually entitled to get a decent night’s comfortable sleep.
In the old days your financial standing affected your rank, if you could buy your own horse and equipment (and maintain them) you could probably get accepted as an officer. The army needs equipment as well as soldiers.
It is true that people who are really bad at a job can gain powerful positions. All they have to do is bluff their way into a position with some authority, make sure that those working under them can do the job, and then claim the credit. Skillfully shifting blame might be useful too. Sometimes people feel threatened by the abilities of others and make sure that they don't promote anyone better than themselves.
I can imagine that in the D&D universe there would be many instances where you would only want to have people working for you that you were sure you could control. Many of the most confident (and competent) characters might be too self willed to blindly take orders.
You could risk giving them a command position and then see what happens when your plans clash with their values, interests and loyalties.
I think the relationship between required ability and perceived (or proven) control of the person with the ability is going to be very important for employment and promotion in a D&D environment. This is where loyalty becomes the most valued commodity. There is no point hiring someone for their ability if they are not going to use it on your behalf when you need it the most. But you can generally trust your friends and family more than you can trust strangers. On this basis alone, nepotism rules. Even with nepotism, incompetence can still halt ones advancement, assuming the blame is not shifted to an innocent party.
From now on I will certainly factor in this reality rule: Capability of those with power may be less than perceived or expected or touted.
When I justify these exceptions, my game world could be more interesting.Thanks for your good thought.
A perfect example of that in modern day would be the military. In your average unit the best person, as far as capability goes, is usually the sarge. Not the captain and certainly not the lieutenants. Translate that to D&D, and you should have the 1st level warriors, a 5th level fighter as the sarge, and the "captain" or whatever might very well be a 3rd level aristocrat. Sounds more realistic, anyway...
What military are you in? The military I served in was rife with favoritism, incompetent leaders and bureaucracy. (That would be the US Army.) Supposed "army-values" and actual proficiencies in your work are actual stumbling blocks on advancing, while boot-licking, backstabbing and an presenting a false appearance are the real ways to get ahead.
Now I am guessing you are either in a military unlike any I have experienced or not in the military. I don't fault you for the assumption that the military is a meritocracy as there is a lot of money fueling the propaganda of that idea.
In real life I often found myself serving under those with no applicable experience in the field they were serving in. I have had to do the jobs of E-7, (figuring out how things should work, platoon sized troop placement, and shifting schedules) Why? Because I could and they couldn't. In real life there is no such thing as a meritocracy because there is no one standard of what works to gain power or influence over other people.
The point that D&D is a meritocracy is actually valid because in D&D there is an objective measurement of what is effective. Even if you gain power though influencing other people higher level people will be more successful than lower level characters meaning a higher level of over all competence, and also dealing with more challenging situations would lead to becoming more qualified.
In real life there is no XP, no levels, which is a shame.
A perfect example of that in modern day would be the military. In your average unit the best person, as far as capability goes, is usually the sarge. Not the captain and certainly not the lieutenants. Translate that to D&D, and you should have the 1st level warriors, a 5th level fighter as the sarge, and the "captain" or whatever might very well be a 3rd level aristocrat. Sounds more realistic, anyway...
You hit the nail on the head - Senior NCOs are the most experienced soldiers that a military has - it's not uncommon to have a Sergeant in his mid 30s who's been soldiering for 15 years. Think mid level fighters at the LEAST.
Lieutenants can be totally green with less than 3 years of training only, with no operational time under their belts. Think low level aristocrats with a one level dip in a fighting class for the really talented ones who've actually seen battle.
Captains are more difficult to call - you can find Captains with 6+ years in the military, but you can also find a lot of officers who retire as Captains - it's the rank an officer is pretty much guaranteed to reach. A hard edge captain who does what's right and has the balls to tell his superiors when they're wrong will never get promoted; but with 25+ years in the military, he'll have himself good n' sorted out. They can range from low level fighter / low level aristocrat on one end, to high level fighter / low level aristocrat on the other.
Once you're a Major, Lieutenant Colonel or higher you'll find that you're now more an administrator or planner than actual war-fighters. A senior officer may have had a lot of experience, but they're no longer trigger men so to speak. Only a minority of senior officers actually command too - most of them are "staff officers", that is a second man to the commander in charge of logistics, operations, intelligence, etc. They're not killers or leaders at all. Think mid level Fighter / mid level Aristocrats - and they'll be at least middle aged.
Generals would be high level aristocrats or something...
Once an Sergeant becomes a Warrant Officer or Sergeant Major (UK and Canadian Ranks) they move to the rear of the fighting again. They're known as First Sergeants in the USA - American 'Warrant Officers' are something totally different. Anyways, these guys are the most experienced combatants but they're generally older and not as fit anymore... Think high level fighters, but they're generally also middle age or old.
That's my 2cp anyways...
I have to agree with Sulaco that this is not completely in accordance with real-life mechanics, especially under feudal systems of government. But it ought to be understood by those reading this thread that the "Rising Cream" model allows for all sorts of dramatic possibilities and helps:
1) "Top" can mean "Top tax bracket;" which is cooler: a BBEG with a palace, or a hovel?
2) Part of the fun of leveling is the feel that your character is rising to the top. Which makes your character (and the player, for that matter) feel better: That your character is unveiling what he had all along, or that he's merely a product of his dragon-rife environment?
3) From the point of view of standard high fantasy: Why complicate things by having two different measures of character power?
I'm not bashing Sulaco's valid point. But I would respond that it's not in keeping with historical fantasy lit.
I'd like to throw in here that this is mostly a case of dramatic necessity.
This is especially evident in the case of BBEGs. In a more real universe, sure, the BBEG would be more likely to be a level 2 Aristocrat surrounded by level 15 Golem bodyguards. In a fantasy world, though, people don't like the idea of fighting through tough bodyguards to find that the BBEG himself is a pushover (who's really good at running an organization). It's much more preferable that the bodyguards are just a prelude to the power of the BBEG.
So although it may not be realistic to have the most dangerous enemies at the top, it makes for a better storyline.
Yes, and no. Let the PCs fight through the bodyguards, with the BBEG assisting by lobbing spells, activating traps, etc. Then as the last of the bodyguards starts to go down, have the BBEG escape with a teleport spell or the like, power destroyed for the moment, but with a score to settle with the PCs in the future.
By the time the PCs finally take him out for good, it can be quite satisfying in spite of the BBEG not being all that "tough" as a stand-alone individual. 
And even then, is the BBEG the party just defeated the REAL head of the forces they're trying to defeat, or just middle management with the TRUE boss having kept his name out of everything. (Except for that scrap of parchment the PCs find after searching the first BBEG's lair.....)
And even then, is the BBEG the party just defeated the REAL head of the forces they're trying to defeat, or just middle management with the TRUE boss having kept his name out of everything. (Except for that scrap of parchment the PCs find after searching the first BBEG's lair.....)
I ran a campaign one time where the BBEG was the head of the local chapter of a merchant house. He was dangerous not because of his power, but because he had the assassin's guild on retainer to protect him and the membership of his guild.
In D&D magic, monsters, and gods will have a big impact on who and what takes the helm of command. Really, how many people in the real world would follow the leaders we have if they had the power to take control? Not a lot. It just isn't evil or chaotic nations that this would happen at. If commoners have a crappy life because of those in power, then one went out and became a power house able to single handedly take control, why wouldn't they?
In the real world people can't get super powers, however in D&D it's just a class away. Anyone with even a little understanding of people should know how power changes them. And that's just political or economic power, imagine how a person who could throw fireball's would change. Really, trying to say D&D politics should be like real life, is leaving out a whole lot of world altering factors that are all over D&D.
I am not saying that there would be no nations like that, just that they would be in the minority. After all in D&D a nation couldn't be built by a weakling with the things they have to deal with.
Then they are forced to adventure in their youth - superbly equipped, with veteran adventurer "assistants" and such, but in the end, they had to see some action to get their levels. And you want more than one leveled heir, in case something bad happens.
In 3.x, all you need to get levels is the desire to do so, some initial training to a combat-effective class and opportunity. All of which the ruling class can get easier than your average stable hand. It is very easy for a powerful party using something like shield-other, hero feast, greater magic weapon, mantle of faith, fullplate, etc to fight very high CR encounters (for the noble) without a huge amount of risk. Just stay away from the blasphemy-monsters and it's all good.
So yeah, I'd expect the guys running things to have some levels (both leadership feat and skill ranks are level-dependent) but they probably didn't earn them by joining a group of adventurers in a bar. They were probably coddled and twinked by the "muscle" of the currently reigning king.
My wife and I have designed other campaign worlds that explain the "leveling" phenomena a variety of ways, but for the generic setting, "twinking" is pretty much all you need to explain a leveled ruling class. Play any MMORPG and you'll see how widespread such a practice is, if it is possible at all.
Who is to say a 12th level fighter can't be an absolutely incompetent general? Competency, especially as being posited here as leadership, has nothing to do with physical or professional acumen.
Level itself is a difficult thing to define in non-game terms anyways. What makes a 2nd level fighter twice as tough as a 1st level fighter? Experience is one thing, but what were those experiences and do they really make the person a better leader (or whatever)?
The problem, mechanically, is that level is defined by experience, and while a neophyte could ascend to certain positions of power (for example a throne), by definition his continued survival in that position will accrue him experience and therefore levels. One can argue that it is impossible, technically, for anyone in a position of importance for any length of time to avoid having mid to high levels of some class, be it even Aristocrat or Expert levels.
Devin
I can see a Meritocracy working in many cases... and the "anti-meritocracy" that Devin describes could very easily be in place as well. I have known guys and gals like this my whole life... they get SPECTACULARLY skilled, but never want to take charge, and don't have the skills to be in charge to begin with. I've seen this with cops, nurses, teachers, and even in the (US) military.
I use several versions of rulership in my campaign world. There are Monarchies, Theocracies, Bureaucracies, and Meritocracies. In my main Empire, there is an embedded Meritocracy within the Monarchy - you do well, you may get landed or even a higher title... and it works the same way in the main Theocracy as well.
But, like Devin brings up, there is no guarantee that the person is going to be able to perform the duties.
Let's take the jeweler in one of the frontier towns in my campaign. For setting reasons he was in his late twenties and a simple 3rd level Expert (I didn't want him to be any higher as the PCs were only that level themselves at the time and his rescue was part of the storyline) with maximum ranks and Feats all built towards him being a great Jeweler. All totaled he had a skill of 14 in Craft-Jeweler, a definitely high degree of skill, yet the problem is that he was supposed to be this settings Cartier, who from the same age was world renowned as the finest master of his craft anyone had ever seen. So, I jacked up his ability to spend his skill points for Craft-Jeweler and he then stood at 31 in the skill, about what I wanted. Now sure, I could have had this guy as epic level, but why would he then have need to be rescued from the small tribe of kobolds? The guy would have had an immensely better attack matrix than the party's combat beast. Even with low hit points he could have taken a half dozen kobold guards apart with a dirty sock with that amount of experience and savvy.
I informed my group about this type of problem before the campaign began and we decided that quite simply this was going to be one of the VERY FEW places where PCs and "non-combatant NPCs differed. THEY didn't want every truly skilled weaponsmith around to be able to take apart the party single handedly at low levels either.
Also, we use primogeniture as the basis in campaign for most inheritance, which promotes mediocrity, which IS far more reasonable feeling than every town Captain of the Guard being the nastiest piece of work in town. Usually he isn't in games. He may be (usually is) a long service veteran, but that's it. The town's "most famous" tailor may be a 5th level expert with everything he has for feats centered around making him the best he can be, or he may be 1st level 19 year old son of the guy who WAS the greatest tailor in the shire and who inherited his fathers shop. Regor and Son, Fine Clothing may WELL be better known than Gurthoc's Clothes even if they are both commensurately skilled to the above.
Likewise, most the nobility, the rulers and ruling families in our campaign, in settled and safe areas especially, are no where near being the greatest warriors or whatever in the area. The sixty year old despot, terror of the region, Count Walensen might be a 14th level Wizard-Evoker, or he might be a Aristocrat*4 who's very good at picking his people and who excels at planning. I bring this example up because one of my best BBEGs was an Arsitocrat*4, who stymied a party with an EL*14 for months of game time. When the final encounter came he was not intimidated by the "powerful adventurers" in the least.
"Put your swords away you fools and take me to the King. I am COUNT Emil Arasov Walensen von Strouden and the likes of you have no claim to my blood; none of you ranks above Bannerette. Even were the King to privately approve of your butchering me, he couldn't afford to allow it. Spill one drop of my blood and your families will suffer for it... by the hands of the King's own troops."
Now, that doesn't mean that he (or a town Captain of the Guard who's just a Commoner*3/Warrior*2 say) didn't have plenty of powerful (in one case a hideously powerful) personages in his employ, but he himself was no powerhouse by any means. The whole thing has a far more reasonable feel when you do it this way. Seldom in literature is this different and when it is, you can almost be assured that it's going to be a bad book ina plethora of other ways as well.
Isshia
A) You did something rather spectacular, not just "creamy" but extremely unusual. I.e. "The Incomparable" Sir Issac Newton deserves his fame. He invented calc (my bebg). He was a chair at a university, and he had just as much prestige (though his a bit more lasting...) as the guys he worked with who. . .
B) Paid for it. Degree, bootlicking, family, just plain ole' dog persistence, and there are only so many ways to really go about "doing anything to get ahead" ya know. Undercutting those better, but "on par" with you. Theft, bribery, lies. If you can spit on truth and
out your honor, well... "you can do anything too."Either you can and do what can't be done, or your just another dime a dozen.
In more ways than one.
Now for evil humanoids, I think it is entirely appropriate for the tribe's chief to be the highest level, because if he can't beat up anyone in his tribe he probably is not going to remain chief long. Likewise in a Magocracy, it is most likely going to be the most powerful mage who is in charge. But in an uncontested hereditary monarchy, the royalty is unlikely to be all that high level.
When I was putting together an army, I basically was setting it up with privates as Warrior 1, Corporals as Warrior 2 or Fighter 1, Sergeants at Fighter 2-4, and officers generally being something like Aristocrat 2/ Fighter 1. I also had the PCs roll for initial social rank, and the highest ranking of them is who everyone assumes is the party leader. (Since it turned out to be their highest charisma guy, it kind of worked out) I wouldn't do that in every campaign, but it worked with the one I was running.
As a result, you would probably end up with a "survival of the fittest" situation. A low-level ruler would be easy pickings for the first mid-to-high level adventuring party that came along.
The other half of the equation is that in D&D, skill points are based on level. Anyone with enough Diplomacy or Profession (politician) to get into office is going to have to be high level. This raises the question of how NPCs gain XP. Surely the 20th level commoner that exists in most major cities hasn't spent the last 5 years fighting dragons!
Take the same group of town-guardsmen. Flesh out each individual member of it. That seems like a prime way of fighting this meritocracy in a D&D world. But think how long it would take to stat out and assign specific back story to each NPC in a town, even a hamlet that incorporated why they are where they are, without their class level implying it. Now we have Jonny Red, the dead-shot marksman who joined the town-guard. He's a level 6 warrior with specific archer feats. And Sammy who sold his fathers farm when he passed away and joined up. He's actually a level 8 commoner. And Johan the Elf, who is a Wizard Academy drop out and joined the town-watch. He's a Wizard3/Warrior 1. And Sarge, well, he's a fighter 1/aristocrat 3. His family ties got him that promotion. He's a nice guy and all, but…
And there, no more meritocracy because you have gone against the normal conventions of using stock-stat NPCs.
At the same time, I've fallen into the trap of the BBEG whose always more powerful than his followers, and I need to get out of that rut. However, I doubt I'll ever send PCs against an evil opponent who is like 1st level when the party is 5th level or higher.
You don't just get experience points from going out and hacking some creature up. If PCs can get XP from solving puzzles, finding diplomatic situations to problems and whatnot, so can NPCs. A good mayor could have had years of experience sorting out problems and whatnot that would have granted him equivalent XP to gain a few levels. The noble's son has probably grown up being trained by a host of sparring partners and tutors who the has had many opportunities to get XP from. So its not dungeoneering XP. Experience has to count for something as well.
Also, others have forgotten that HP aren't how much punishment you can physically take. It's also your luck at keeping yourself from getting killed. An NPC king who has a lot of hit points can't necessarily take a dozen daggers poked into him at once, but he's "important" enough to the story that he doesn't go down in one fell swoop. It could be luck, the gods shining on him, his importance to the story/game or whatever that grants him the large HP pool. Basically, it's a little difficult for his opponents to easily off him.
However, I am going to remember Sulaco's comments the next time I start building my opponents and the BBEG. Maybe the party WILL face a squad of Iron Golems under the control of a mousy 5th level rogue, who'll knuckle under if the party really threatens to put a hurt on him...
And recall, just as in real life, two of the methods for gaining power - merit and politics - do require some experience, and should track well with level. The third, nepotism, is a little harder to explain.
But consider, you are a D&D character. You know that your power comes from combat experience, and you want your children to be powerful so they can inherit your position. You would therefore give them nice things to help them level up more quickly - some good bodyguards, free healing, valuable magic items. Sure, there is still some risk of death, but it's minimal.
So the problem is not really that a 3rd level expert cannot have enough skill points to be a "Cartier", the problem is actually that a high level Expert has too many hp, save bonuses, and BAB to be threatened by things that could be suitable villains for a low level party.
This is not an insurmountable problem, but it is also not one that, IMO, requires making a special exception for NPCs vs PCs.
What it does require is:
1) Simply not designing scenarios for low level PCs that involve high level NPCs (why does the rescuee have to be the "Cartier" of his generation? Why can't he simply be a talented jeweler?).
2) Or having the DM realize that while players and DMs are aware of levels and BAB and hit points, the NPCs within the world are not. And while PCs test themselves and their capabilities often enough to be intimately aware of their thresholds, a sedentary jeweler will not.
So maybe the "Cartier" is a 12th level Expert with maxed out ranks in Craft (jewelry) who has 42 hp and a BAB of +9. But he also has probably never picked up a weapon in anger in his life and is likely to be scared to death to actually hack it out with even a group of measly kobolds. Who says the jeweler has to know he has a BAB of +9? How would he if he's never fought anything?
If you really look at the situation, the problem only arises if the players and DM metagame the situation. It only arises if the players ask the DM how an NPC can have 40 ranks of Craft and be unable to take out kobolds. But that is a question they should not be asking in the first place.
Devin
I used the example of Cartier for a reason... to whit: he was nearly as talented as a jeweler as a teen as when he was in his forties. Or, in D&D terms, when he was low level compared to when he did become a high level Expert. There is no way under the present system to account for this or for the idiot savant, without stepping outside slavish adherence to the RAW in this instance.
D&D is a great game engine, but it has a few flaws. This is clearly one of them.
There you have it. If you want to assume D&D mechanics modeling life experience, then this is a must read.
As you can see, D&D is a partial meritocracy, if you assume that those in command are the oldest. In the case of kings, yes, your high level king will probably be around level 9-12, but he's an old man. And unless he was severely tested during his reign, he'll be a lot closer to 9 than 12.
This fits in with the "warrior king" ideology well, even with "noncombat" classes like sorcerer. consider: a 9th level sorcerer still has a BAB of +4, which is respectable enough in its own right... the sorcerer king certainly won't outfight anyone with any real skill, but he's no novice to conflict. Bab +4 only looks bad when you're looking at EL 9 or so. If said king faces, on average, EL 4 encounters, he comes off as no worse off than the fighter aside from weapon choice. And who's to say he didn't take a dip in warrior to pick up that proficiency? After all, a king has to have his nice ceremonial armor, now doesn't he?
I've been using Sean's analysis for quite some time, and I came to the conclusion that with a little less emphasis on optimizing every NPC my life became so much easier. Now I ask myself "how old is the captain?" and look it up on a spreadsheet I made. This works in nearly any situation when I need an NPC on the spot-- two decisions to make (1 how old, 2 what class) and looking up a few tables in the DMG (GOD BLESS YOU, PRE-LEVELED CHARACTERS!!!) and voila!
I save my in-depth analysis for weightier issues (ie: recurring NPC's or otherwise important figures).
Radu's "Newbie with Promise" template:
Human Expert 1 with Skill Focus: BLANK and the relevant +2/+2 skill feats, 4 ranks, and a 13 in the appropriate stat. BAM! A +10 right there, good enough to crank out most common items, and with a little time and help, even plate mail and the like.
These talented newbies are probably going to see a lot of trade, so they'll gain XP slightly faster--- say, 10-20% faster? Is that an acceptable assumption? So just add +20% to whatever you'd get using Sean's analysis and there you have it.
They are probably more likely to receive notice and patronage from wealthy individuals, meaning they might survive to reach middle levels without too much trouble.
The only way I can see really high level (12+) NPCs are with long lived races like elves and dwarves or with NPCs in a more dangerous area. The former will get xp over more time (nicely backing up the very tolkeinesque "Calamity Jane" elves) and the latter will get xp faster ("Calamity Jane" humans.)
In conclusion: need we worry about NPC stats? If your players know that His Grace Rhygar Mannington, Duke of Farnsworth is a 14th level aristocrat--HOW DID THEY FIND OUT? Perhaps this is an example of overthinking the issue. In the games I was in, I never knew the levels of NPCs. Sense Motive checks could be used to "guesstimate" but we never got hard stats. The PCs knew the other PCs because (in character) we literally spent the majority of three years in highly stressful and life threatening positions with each other. You kind of get to know exactly what people are made of in those circumstances, and even an untrained Sense Motive check, rolled once a day over the course of 3 years will eventually result in a 20. Not that we bothered with that, but you see my point--it might be better to give your players a general idea of relative power using the aforementioned Sense Motive check (which by the way makes it a very popular skill, which is ok with me because I like the worldly adventurer archetype being able to "feel out" the relative experience and skill level of others. You learn how to do some of this in any sort of martial arts generally, and in my specialty I can pretty well tell who the braggarts are).
If you'd like to put the final nail in the coffin, you could let characters use Knowledge rolls (OR ANY skill, for that matter!) as a sort of limited version of sense motive. While Jarvis the fighter doesn't know a whole lot about spellcraft, if someone is talking up a storm about how great of a climber they are, Jarvis (who maxxed out his climb ranks) should be able to figure out if they're full of hot air or legit without necessarily knowing if their boasts about spellcraft were true. Makes sense to me--- fighters generally know fightery type stuff (reflected by their class skill list) and may not understand when a Cleric or Bard explains for the 2^10th power time the differences between the Ethereal and Astral plane, having no ranks in Knowledge: The Planes, but at the same time, when the fighter explains for the 2^10th power time the finer points of leverage and how it is best applied, the bard may give him a blank look, not having the Power Attack feat.
The problem there is the one Sulaco hit on in the beginning. This game is about the numbers in many ways, even among hard core role players. The restrictions aren't justifiable.
I used the example of Cartier for a reason... to whit: he was nearly as talented as a jeweler as a teen as when he was in his forties. Or, in D&D terms, when he was low level compared to when he did become a high level Expert. There is no way under the present system to account for this or for the idiot savant, without stepping outside slavish adherence to the RAW in this instance.
D&D is a great game engine, but it has a few flaws. This is clearly one of them.
Sorry, but I still disagree (not about it having a few flaws...it does, but about this particular issue being a problem).
I am not an expert on Cartier, but any pretense that he was as TECHNICALLY proficient a jeweler in his teens as in his forties simply defies logic and, most likely, is just plain wrong. No one steeps oneself in a trade for 30 years and gets no better.
You can argue that on the aesthetic, non-proficiency related, artistic side of jewelry design he was "as good" in his teens as in his forties, but artistic merit is a very subjective criteria and one that the D&D skill system does not and should not attempt to codify.
Do the Craft skills represent art? Not in my opinion. Craft (jeweler) represents the knowledge involved in cutting, polishing, and mounting jewelry. Yes, one can argue a certain aesthetic sense is also necessary in the Craft check, but any attempt to really inculcate artistic qualities into the skill are doomed to fail. Quite simply, not only is art subjective amongst individuals, but even amongst cultures, so one would have to apply a bewildering variety of massive circumstance bonuses depending upon the viewer. Not a place anyone wants to or needs to go.
Craft skills should represent technical merit, proficiency, and wherewithal. That's it.
An artist should not get a check relating to the "art" component of his work. There is simply no need.
Aside from that, we are left with the issue of idiot savants. I seriously doubt we need to consider the exclusion of idiot savants as a flaw. It is such a rare and specific instance that a circumstance bonus in conjunction with Skill Focus is all that is needed. If one truly wanted to mirror idiot savants in game, then make up a new feat called Idiot Savant:
IDIOT SAVANT (general):
This feat may only be taken at 1st level. The character is an idiot savant, mentally deficient in most areas but brilliant in a single chosen skill. The skill chosen must be an Int-based skill. The character gains a +2 circumstance bonus to the chosen skill for each -1 inherent penalty taken to both Int and Wis.
Devin
This doesn't mean that they never did any great work again, but Rembrandt especially, of those three, even wrote to friends that he considered it a cruel whim of fate that he would never again achieve the power he managed with "The Ass of Balaam Talking before the Angel" 1626, which was widely considered HIS greatest work. Even nearly thirty seven years later, with "Return of the Prodigal Son" 1662, which is widely regarded as the best of his later works, even he knew it was a shadow by comparison.
Too, I was a better mechanic in my teens than I am now, though I have added better than two decades of experience, I was more intuitive then with diagnosing problems just by sound and while I may be a better technical writer now, in my early twenties was when I did my most creative work by far, my best work.
Isshia
I have great trouble seeing an old weaponsmith, jeweler, or merchant who would not get completely humiliated by a strapping young soldier, even if one or more stats remain at 10 even after aging penalties.
I'm nitpicking too much at specifics here, I know. Still, you can make very specialized NPCs who still have glaring weaknesses. Ironically, I like Eberron very much because it precisely avoids the meritocracy fiction. Who says the most famous jeweler in the land is the best jeweler? Maybe he's just the one lucky enough to be closest to the royal palace. Perhaps he's a very charming jeweler. All over Eberron, you have prominent NPCs who have their positions by hook or by crook, including much of the nobility and military brass.
An additional emphasis on circumstance and synergy bonuses helps. The jeweler is so great because, his uncle being a wealthy merchant, his workshop is outfitted with the best gear in the land, giving him an advantage over his more dexterous yet poorly equipped competitors. He's so great because, unlike many jewelers, he has many apprentices all at once, and trains each to perform a specific part of the crafting process, such that he can have many high-quality pieces produced swiftly. And so on.
In more corrupt governments, the less capable people can gain power through manipulation, bribes, and just plain inefficiency in selection processes. Harsh environments will probably have more capable people rising to the top.
Art is subjective, not technical, the first art by these people are the most popular because of any number of reasons. It could be the first time effect, like when someone sees the ocean for the first time it is more memorable, even if they see it from a better view later. Then there’s the art is subjective thing just because it was the most popular doesn't mean it was "technically" better, just more liked. The skill check in the jeweler example doesn't mean he couldn't cut beautiful jewels, just that the jewels were not cut as good as they could be. Even rough jewels can be more beautiful than cut ones.
As for your mechanic argument, that could be any number of reasons. Like no matter how much we like a job, it gets less exciting over the years and less excitement could cause less "beauty" in the work.
in my early twenties was when I did my most creative work by far, my best work.
That quote nods to my previous statement. It also is the same problem facing TV series, the longer they last the less creative it gets, as the creators get a "been there, done that" attitude. The technical work improves (mostly) but the creative work falls. Like Devin said skills shouldn't handle subjective material. Otherwise it gets too complicated.
Back to the power ruling D&D debate.
"Put your swords away you fools and take me to the King. I am COUNT Emil Arasov Walensen von Strouden and the likes of you have no claim to my blood; none of you ranks above Bannerette. Even were the King to privately approve of your butchering me, he couldn't afford to allow it. Spill one drop of my blood and your families will suffer for it... by the hands of the King's own troops."
Such a threat would be risky. That only works if the PCs couldn't kill the king or his men, and/or had families they were worried for. Once a person gets planeshift why not take they're family to the upper planes to be safe? Even if you became evil the celestials wouldn't punish your family for your crimes (unlike humanoids).
Plus who is to say all parties would come from the region they threatened anyway? With teleport spells you can go anywhere in the world. Simply go to a different continent and start trouble there. But most evil PCs (even neutral ones) wouldn't have moral problems taking over a nation if they benefited and were unstoppable.
Non-combatant
Prerequisite: BAB of zero
Special--this feat may only be taken at first level, and with DM's approval. NOT recommended for player characters.
Flaw: You are not at your best in a life threatening situation.
In any perceived life-threatening situation, you suffer a -2 on all attack rolls, skill checks, and all reflex and will saving throws. This represents the likelihood that you will freeze up due to either inexperience or simple lack of nerves. In non-life-threatening situations, you function normally. (This refers to imminent physical danger only, not to situations such as pleading a case in court, where failure will result in execution)
Special: You can spend a feat at a later time to eliminate the flaw, provided you have performed successfully in a life-threatening situation. (DM's discretion)
New feat proposals:
Skill Master (General)
Benefit: You can have a maximum number of skill ranks equal to (Level +3) skill points, plus your intelligence bonus, in class skills.
Normal: You can have a maximum number of skill ranks equal to level +3 skill points in any class skills.
Skill Grandmaster (General)
Prerequisite: Skill Master, Skill Focus (any), 10 ranks in at least one skill
Benefit: You can spend any number of skill points on a class skill, but each skill point over (Level +3 plus int. bonus) only buys a half-rank of the skill.
Normal: You can have a maximum number of skill ranks equal to (Level +3) skill points, plus your intelligence bonus, in class skills, including the Skill Master feat.
These options, especially if combined, would nicely allow the true expert at some skill to be less than helpful in a fight. Fantasy literature does have the expert sage that couldn't fight (or magic) his way out of a wet paper bag, the master locksmith that always needs help, since she can open any lock, but couldn't climb a wall or defend herself, the political genius that's laid low with a single punch.
Balance in the Skill Master tree is a concern--any thoughts?
Cantankerous I think what your missing a few factors in the talent argument.
Art is subjective, not technical, the first art by these people are the most popular because of any number of reasons. It could be the first time effect, like when someone sees the ocean for the first time it is more memorable, even if they see it from a better view later. Then there’s the art is subjective thing just because it was the most popular doesn't mean it was "technically" better, just more liked. The skill check in the jeweler example doesn't mean he couldn't cut beautiful jewels, just that the jewels were not cut as good as they could be. Even rough jewels can be more beautiful than cut ones.
As for your mechanic argument, that could be any number of reasons. Like no matter how much we like a job, it gets less exciting over the years and less excitement could cause less "beauty" in the work.
That quote nods to my previous statement. It also is the same problem facing TV series, the longer they last the less creative it gets, as the creators get a "been there, done that" attitude. The technical work improves (mostly) but the creative work falls. Like Devin said skills shouldn't handle subjective material. Otherwise it gets too complicated.
Art is subjective but it has a technical aspect as well and THAT is a major part of how it is critically judged. Even in those ways, Cartier, Rembrandt, so many others that the list becomes exhaustive, were SUPERIOR in their abilities in youth, than they were later in their lives.
Besides which fact, skills in D&D that do handle the subjective (almost all of them really as it's almost impossible to REALLY quantify anything that has to do with the Intelligence of Perceptivity) as well as the objective (such skills as Jump, Swim, Climb and others more easily quantifiable directly to tangibles) more often than the objective. So you'd have to throw out vast swatches of the present system to "fix" the problem. Knowledge-Local is every bit as subjective as Craft-Limner. More so, really.
16 Int, 3rd level Commoner
Skill Focus Specific Craft +4
Skill focus related group of crafts +3
Skilled, crafts period, +2
6 ranks
5 ranks KS Jewelry for synergy bonus
5 ranks KS nobility fashions, for synergy bonus
6 ranks Appraise
3+ 9 + 6 + 4 = 22
Not including Masterwork or magical tools.
Give him a level of cleric, Domain Craft, Artifice, that is a bonus Skill Focus Feat and a +4 _Competence_ on Craft Checks. That frees up another Feat for a general bonus that can apply to Craft, for a total of 28, not including tools.
And if you are going to make him a Cleric for the Domains, there are some spells that boost Craft skills even more. Divine Insight, +5 +1/level, I believe.
Give the guy a 10 wisdom, and you don't need to worry about the spellcasting part.
Masterwork tools give +2 circumstance bonus which would be cumulative with, say, +5 Enhancement.
So, 1 level of Cleric for the Domains, and you have a 35 roll, without going into buffs, spells, or blessings or even exceptional stats.
XP are rewarded for overcoming a challenge. If Joe the 1st-level Commoner says to himself, "I think I'll become the power behind the throne!" and schmoozes and supports and betrays and networks and connives until he is the power behind the throne, then Joe has 'overcome the challenge' and is due quite a few XP. In other words, he won't be 1st level anymore by virtue of his long climb to power.
Nor is the life of those born at the top necessarily easier. The aristocrats have constantly to stomp on the aspirations (and occasionally the faces) of the aforementioned Joe, often on a daily basis. Every thwarted coup or disgraced rival is another challenge overcome, and more XP in the bank. Don't think of court life as sitting on a big cushion while your servants wheel in barrows of gold: it's more like dirty politics on Capitol Hill. Not many kings die of old age in a D&D world.
(Of course, a guy can take those XP earned in politics and invest them in Barbarian or Druid, but that ties into the much more troublesome 'unrealistic nature of the level system', which is off-topic for this thread.)
Thus, although I agree that the very highest-level characters will not generally be sitting on the throne, there's some legitimacy to the idea that the nobility will probably have at least a few levels.
Skill Focus Specific Craft +4
Skill focus related group of crafts +3
Skilled, crafts period, +2
5 ranks KS Jewelry for synergy bonus
The stuff that is bolded is knocked out, off the bat, as non-Core. If I want eight thousand mindless bonuses to be accruable to the class I'll simply invent them, not spend a few hundred bucks to achieve the same end. Plus, this is supposed to be a Jewler, not a Cleric. When you have to start taking character Classes to improve your skills you've gone so far towards meta that the light from reasonable will take decades to get to you.
Optimization is one thing, buying half of the splatbooks WotC sells to ridiculously over optimize as part of the solution to the problem of NPCs being incapable of great capability without being mega level is another.
It's obvious that the intent of the rules can be easily subverted by owning dozens of splatbooks, but it's no solution to the real problem, just the introduction of a new problem--the thousand splatbook arms race.
Isshia
There are several different Feats that boost Diplomacy, for example. And spending 5 ranks on a Knowledge skill to get a +2 on a Craft skill strikes me as fairly reasonable, within the spirit of the rules, and sufficiently expensive in terms of skill points that it won't be abused much.
As for the issue of going Cleric: The legends are _full_ of craftsmen who were so skilled at their Craft that they could work magic. Take a look at Siegfried the Smith, or some of the stories about Finnish bards. The Chronicles of Prydain, by Lloyd Alexander have a background of craftsmen who were so skilled that they created magical items by their craft. And then Arawn tricked then and stole their treasures and the world was poorer for it.
Now to qualify for all those feat by 3rd level, this guy would probably have to have traveled a lot to get strange feats taught by guys with very strange backgrounds.
Even without too many Feats, a 3rd level character can have a very impressive Craft.
6 ranks, +3 for stat, +4 synergies, +6-7 for Feats, +4 Craft Domain, +2 Masterwork tools = +26 or +27
Now that might not actually be enough to be the best in the kingdom, but it is a skill that could attract serious notice.
And synergy bonuses are Core. I misremembered the skill focus bonus, but +3 skill focus is Core. Multiple Feats that give +2 to one skill and +2 to another skill are Core. Getting +3 from skill focus Gem Cutting, and two other Feats that give a +2 is quite doable for a 3rd level character.
In a magical universe, someone with a +20 to their Craft roll will attract the attention of the Patron God(dess) of that Craft, and vice versa. It would almost be unusual if you had someone _that_ devoted to the Craft who ignored and was ignored by the deities associated with it.
Personally, if I have to vote for a town Mayor, I'd make being able to live through a fireball or magic missile a job requirement. Bodyguards only go so far, and I don't want my mayor to have to live in fear or be easily threatened.
For that matter, politicians IRL are often pretty well-schooled (i.e. trained), usually lawyers. Maybe D&D politicians are wizards. Wizards have the int and skill points to acquire many of the necessary skills and defensive and information spells which should come in quite handy.
WHY NOT let your capable NPCs have a few HP and BAB? D&D is an exceptional world, and a much more dangerous one than our own.
Some do, but not all need to have it. One does not in any way NEED to be a capable warrior to be a legendary quality artist.
Some do, but not all need to have it. One does not in any way NEED to be a capable warrior to be a legendary quality artist.
This is a true observation of the real world. It is not true of D&D. As the latter has never been intended as a precise simulation of the laws of reality, it is somewhat less than helpful to fault the system for not achieving a goal that it does not hold. Why don't we all just accept that the D&D universe operates within a different set of rules and be done with it?
Why would a hereditary king (or baron, or merchant, etc.) be high level? He'd never be put in enough danger to gain significant levels. And, why would a high level wizard take orders from a king some low-to-mid level aristocrat/expert?
That’s not necessarily so. Historically, most royalties around the world strove to have large numbers of children, and those children were expected to lead and fight in military campaigns. A lot of them died, true, but since the king had 23 sons, that didn't matter too much. In such a royal line, one might very well expect the king to have a very great number of levels indeed, earned as any adventurer earns them; by staying alive despite remarkable and numerous challenges.
Secondly, a high-level wizard would have several reasons to take orders from a low-level aristocrat. Firstly, that aristocrat pays the bills. Secondly, that low-to mid-level aristocrat employs several rather high-level assassins, who will likely take umbrage at such disloyalty from an underling. Thirdly, there are only so many spell slots you can prepare in a day, so it is therefore unwise to upset the guy with the army behind them. Given time, I could probably add a couple of hundred more reasons for such tame compliance...
It is not true of D&D.
Sorry, that is just not the case. This game was created and designed to be EXCEEDINLY open ended. Rule Zero is carte blanche to do so and is stressed by the creators of the game. That is the point. The idea is to keep as much balance and reasonability in applying that as is possible.
Now that would take the commoner to lvl3 xp wise and he (or she) would become very VERY rich.
Wouldn't this get the halfling a lot of "Merit" and cause him to be promoted WAY beyond his level? Remember the David and Goliath Story? He probably just rolled 3 natural 20s in a row and that made him famous beyond measure. (A bit off topic here, but I have a friend who when she was 5, she threw a rock at a cow, it hit it in the back of the head and killed it.)
Luck can get you an assured place in history and an instant position of power.
1) Feudal systems could be meritocratic, and often were. However, the running was not open to everyone. The eldest son did not always inherit, for example - it was often the most capable son who would inherit, sometimes after the eldest suffered an 'accident'. Talented underlings were a good source of assistance, especially if they were also family (bastard sons of nobility were often employed as stewards, retainers and men-at-arms) it is true, but the guy at the top, while he might not have the experience, would certainly have the training. Training is often overlooked in D&D, or else subsumed into experience (i.e. you have to have training and experience to gain levels) but realistically (LOL, I know, it's D&D) training should be able to substitute for experience.
2) The entire idea of a Feudal lord is that he provides protection, he fights. Therefore, it makes sense for him to be good at it be he a baron or a king. Richard III is an excellent example of a 'warrior king' from history; he was one of the foremost fighters of his day. When brought to bay by the forces of Stanley and Henry Tudor, he was quite literally the last man on his side standing. His last words were not "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" they were "Give me kingship or give me death!"
3) The point about the best in their trade not being the leaders is well taken. Consider in a meritocracy you have two computer engineers: #1 is a wizard, knows all your systems, designed your network on the back of an envelope in his lunch break and generally can fix anything; #2 is a plodder, organises his work, writes up his documentation, takes care of his paperwork. Who do you promote to manage the department? #2, of course. Running a department is an admin job, you want to keep #1 at his post on the ground floor where he works best. Being the best fighter does not make you the best general. The third level aristocrat in charge of the 5th level fighters has more skills than they have, and he has them in things like Knowledge (strategy & tactics). He's not there to thump the foe, he's there to tell the men who thump the foe where to go and when to charge.
4) The reason the NPC Power-behind-the-throne often runs a depressed town/city/nation is because they don't know how to run it. They make demands on the leaders nominally in charge that those leaders cannot meet without ruining the economy or upsetting their own powerbase. This also happens when incompetent rulers are born into power and cannot be restrained by their competent advisors. It's another reason for fun adventures when an incompetent but headstrong ruler takes power and immediately imprisons his more competent siblings as a threat and then runs the place into the ground (think Scar from the Lion King). Can the party rescue the prince and depose the king to save the kingdom?
I'd like to throw in here that this is mostly a case of dramatic necessity.
...
So although it may not be realistic to have the most dangerous enemies at the top, it makes for a better storyline.
That's more or less was I was going to say, but from the other side. D&D subordinates realism to drama fairly frequently, and I think this is one of those cases. This isn't just in reference to the general power structures--the BBEG with progressively weaker lieutenants and minions--but also on smaller scales where the powerful fighter leads a guard squad, the ogre mage leads a group of ogres, and so on. We're trained by video games, books, and movies to expect the guy standing in back to be the most powerful of a group, and when the opposite is true--say a physically frail healer or buff/debuff guy guarded by several bruisers--you take note specifically because it IS unusual.
In real life, sure, a guy who's uncomfortable with a sword might still be a great logistics man and strategize like a demon, but it's really not that dramatic to cut through a legion of mooks only to confront a guy the mooks could beat up for lunch money. If he has a powerful subordinate to face first, however, the player's expectation for a "boss fight" is appeased.
I'd like to note that Sulaco's point is most strongly correct in reference to Forgotten Realms, but that's a well-known problem with FR.
A perfect example of that in modern day would be the military. In your average unit the best person, as far as capability goes, is usually the sarge. Not the captain and certainly not the lieutenants. Translate that to D&D, and you should have the 1st level warriors, a 5th level fighter as the sarge, and the "captain" or whatever might very well be a 3rd level aristocrat. Sounds more realistic, anyway...
Not true. That changes from military to military. In ours, officers are enlisted like everyone else does. According to their capabilities, they are sent to officer courses, but they go (at least) through boot camp just like all soldiers do. High ranking officers served much longer than the rest, too.
And being an officers isn't so aristocratic. It's much harder than other ranks, and it puts you at more risk.
Training is often overlooked in D&D, or else subsumed into experience (i.e. you have to have training and experience to gain levels) but realistically (LOL, I know, it's D&D) training should be able to substitute for experience.
It's really the other way around. For NPCs, training determines whether they're a commoner, a warrior, a fighter, or someone with PrC levels.