So it's not really that a class-based system is stupid, or that a class-less system is stupid. What is stupid is wasting time trying to turn a class-based system into class-less or a class-less system into class-based.
I can see where you are coming from, but in my experience with high detail rules heavy point buy systems they tend to make for terrible games. I can think of some ways around that such as character burners, but class based systems have one huge advantage - they enforce breadth of skill that makes it much easier to play ensemble games with everyone contributing.
Both of these are true, so I want to clarify that I'm not opposed to class-based games, on principle. After 35 years of playing D&D off-and-on, I've kinda played through or have seen played through most of the "vanilla" implementations of the class archetypes. They're good to have available, but can also feel like a straight-jacket, sometimes. You can multi-class the heck out of things to get some builds.
In some ways, it's the class-based version of "there are only seven basic plots". At a certain point, though, it ceases to be a hybrid of the rogue and warlock concepts and becomes a sneaky guy with super powers. That throws the idea of class == archetype out the window. That's not really a big deal if your classes break down to "fights well", "casts spells", "knows skills", and maybe "prays well" (though that could just be "casts spells"). When you have 15(ish) classes, it gets hard to explain why the paladin isn't just a fighter/cleric multiclass or why the bard isn't a sub-class (or three) of wizard that gets access to healing spells and gets level-based abilities that aren't around a school of magic. Why isn't ranger just a fighter sub-class?
Better, IMO, would be a non-class system that provides examples for certain archetypes. Even Hero
could be relatively simple to play if you broke down, say, fighter into 20 discreet blocks of advancement (i.e. levels) that could be bought every time you earned 15 experience (or whatever number). Players who want to play the archetype or the simplicity can have it, while those who want to tweak can. Now, I have other reasons why I don't think I want to go back to Hero -- and it
is a complex system -- but it would work.
In some ways, I think Genesys has the right idea. It's far from a perfect system, and I have yet to play it, but you pick a profession at start and it grants you access to certain abilities that you
can take. I don't know that I like that your cost for certain skills is permanent determined by which profession you take.
What I'd kill for, though, is a
good example of how to use Fate Core for fantasy. Fate Freeport gets referenced quite a bit, but it reads pretty horrible, to me. I don't want a complex game. Savage Worlds might be the right level, but I haven't had a chance to try it, yet.