Classes or classless, which system is better in RPGs?

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Spoiler

As soon as you give the player the ability to have any of these spells they want, the game becomes far too easy and broken - because everyone is a tanky disintegrating healer. The only way to prevent that is to weaken all the spells which ruins what made them good to begin with. Or you restrict the spells which is basically all a class is... only with less effort put into making sure every possible choice plays well. You can't have it both ways. You can have your Barbie games that you build a character from a pool of bland abilities, or you can have a class based game with interesting, challenging and well tuned combat. You can even have classes that let you pick spells/abilities so you still feel like you contributed to the design which is the best of both worlds.

That's a false argument. A classless system is limited by the advancement style. A good example of a classless system where a character cannot be everything is Freedom Force. There are no character levels, nor class. Different abilities are purchased with experience, like in Deadlands table-top RPG. If you want your character to be a highly generalized gish, they will not be as good as the specialists. It plays to the strength of the classes system, where character progression is choice between breadth and depth. People can dabble or diversify without restriction, but the opportunity cost is real. Theoretically you can have a character which can do it all, but the experience required to do so would be astronomical--far more than the campaign itself possesses.

I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it can only be done with boring weak abilities. Compare it to what you get in high level AD&D and it is a joke.

Yeah, no. Classes don't guarantee playstyle viability or even that they'll do what's written on the can, for some reason you think classes = guaranteed quality playtesting, which has been proven wrong countless times.

It does guarantee it with good devs.

I take it you are judging through the litmus of only CRPGs? Have you played FATE, Deadlands, or Mage: Ascension/Awakening? Even with CRPGs, D:OS had a wide berth between a focused spell caster and anyone else, for a recent example. Balance is much harder to achieve in a classless system, but in no way does it prevent specialization or prohibit the fantastic.

 

[V_K]

I read correct, it was implied from your high horse. If you insist on that point, you can perfectly achieve "dead man walking" status in most of class-based systems as long as they allow you to take suboptimal character development choices, deliberately or through lack of necessary knowledge. Lots of classes and descriptions are pretty vague or outright misleading in practice, from my experience with vast kinds of RPGs. Unless leveling choices are very low impact (or there're none), you're not granted smooth sailing. What skills/feats/weapons/spells/gadgets/playstyles are supported (and to what extend) depends on developer, regardless of them being restricted to classes or not.

In what world does "one thing classes are good for" implies "classes guarantee"? All I'm saying is, having the player choose between fighter, mage and rogue classes communicates that the game will support fighter, mage and rogue approaches. It might as well communicate wrong, but we're not talking about shitty designs here - you can design a classless system just as shittily.
Just compare Quest for Glory with Age of Decadence to see what I mean. Both games have a limited number of vastly approaches that work. However, QfG tells you explicitly which playstyles work, with its classes - while also allowing to customize your character by picking a couple of non-class skills. AoD, on the other hand, more or less requires metagaming to advance.

 

[Max Damage]

Either YOU are illiterate, or being obtuse on purpose. How does a class communicate something good, while skills/abilities don't? Fighter/mage/thief/cop/sniper/stripper are vague archetypes that differ from system to system in execution, you have to look into actual mechanics to understand the boundaries of what your character(s) can do. Whether a system is good or not has nothing to do with your point when you make such big claims opposed to "all the bullshit mentioned in the previous two pages".

 

[anvi]

Spoiler

As soon as you give the player the ability to have any of these spells they want, the game becomes far too easy and broken - because everyone is a tanky disintegrating healer. The only way to prevent that is to weaken all the spells which ruins what made them good to begin with. Or you restrict the spells which is basically all a class is... only with less effort put into making sure every possible choice plays well. You can't have it both ways. You can have your Barbie games that you build a character from a pool of bland abilities, or you can have a class based game with interesting, challenging and well tuned combat. You can even have classes that let you pick spells/abilities so you still feel like you contributed to the design which is the best of both worlds.

That's a false argument. A classless system is limited by the advancement style. A good example of a classless system where a character cannot be everything is Freedom Force. There are no character levels, nor class. Different abilities are purchased with experience, like in Deadlands table-top RPG. If you want your character to be a highly generalized gish, they will not be as good as the specialists. It plays to the strength of the classes system, where character progression is choice between breadth and depth. People can dabble or diversify without restriction, but the opportunity cost is real. Theoretically you can have a character which can do it all, but the experience required to do so would be astronomical--far more than the campaign itself possesses.

I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it can only be done with boring weak abilities. Compare it to what you get in high level AD&D and it is a joke.

Yeah, no. Classes don't guarantee playstyle viability or even that they'll do what's written on the can, for some reason you think classes = guaranteed quality playtesting, which has been proven wrong countless times.

It does guarantee it with good devs.

I take it you are judging through the litmus of only CRPGs? Have you played FATE, Deadlands, or Mage: Ascension/Awakening? Even with CRPGs, D:OS had a wide berth between a focused spell caster and anyone else, for a recent example. Balance is much harder to achieve in a classless system, but in no way does it prevent specialization or prohibit the fantastic.

Yeah I'm talking about RPGs. Also I don't think it is completely impossible, I just think it is unreasonable and still likely to be worse. You can balance it so that taking one powerful thing means you have less of something else. But at that point it isn't any different to a class, and you need the designer to try out all the various cookie cutter possible builds, at every level, and work out how to balance the game based on that. So yeah you could have huge fireballs on a tank etc, but enemies then need to be tuned to be a challenge to a fireballing tank, and anyone who picks a less overpowered build won't be able to progress. The thing that bugs me the most is that if there is a lot of freedom, then some combination of spells/abilities is always going to be crazily powerful. Which sucks. And if a dev has thought of every possible combination, and balanced it for that, then there likely aren't many combinations to begin with which means it is barely a classless game. It is more like 1 broad class.

You can see all these problems right now in a game like The Secret World which claimed to be classless and let you build whatever you want. The problem is you only have one not very big set of abilities to build from, and the result is that there you can only really make about 5 builds. And none of them feel that much different and none of them feel powerful. Compare that to its competitors which have a dozen distinct classes which are so much better to play. And when the class based games let you choose spells on level up, it is miles better than the goofy simple classless system.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

And when the class based games are like WoW which have a huge talent tree that lets you build your character in multiple different ways, then it is miles better than the goofy simple classless system.

You skipped over the part that in nearly any patch, most classes are second-tier/worthless, and the massive majority of all specs are worthless.

 

[DraQ]

I'd argue that's orthogonal to the classes-classless divide. Consider the case of a conjurer RPG, where at the very beginning of the game you assemble a party of demons and other supernatural servants to do your bidding while you stay in the safety of your mage tower. HP, mana, and equipment are contributed by the conjurer and thus shared across all party members. The conjurer also contributes saving throws and similar properties. At specific points you can grant a level-up to a minion, improving their class-specific traits (e.g. attack, available spells, and so on). So that's a class-based party system, but the granularity of its character system is comparable to a single-player classless system where you can raise preselected skills at level up.

Per character classless is going to be much more finely grained. In your example you are simply broadening the scope to achieve the same level of complexity.

I don't believe we are in actual disagreement here.

The only thing you gain is positioning. Make it a blobber, and you don't even have that.

Nitpick, but you can have positioning in a blobber, although to a more limited extent.

 

[DraQ]

Except they usually don't. Most class-based games are just as blank slatey as classless games, sometimes even more so.

In Baldur's Gate, you're always Gorion's Ward, doesn't matter which class you pick. Your background and your class have nothing at all to do with each other.

In Pillars of Eternity, you are... just some guy/girl who joined an expedition. The class you pick doesn't really have any proper ties into the world.

Picking a class doesn't make me feel like the character has a history in the world.

Admittedly BG *does* have some canned bios.
Daggerfall, OTOH, generates a short bio out of your chargen choices.

 

[DraQ]

Precisely. A battlemage in a class system either requires multiclassing, which not all class-based systems have, or a special battlemage class.

In a classless system, you can build you own battlemage by putting some skill points into magic and some into combat. No artificial class restrictions required.

More than that, you can build multiple, very different battlemage classes.

"But not every Jack and Jill can go and learn magic willy-nilly by leveling up, it makes more sense if a character has to apprentice at a wizard's tower to learn magic!" you might bring forth as an argument in favor of class systems.

But as already mentioned in this thread, Underrail already solves this problem elegantly: if you want to be able to use psi you need to take a pill that unlocks your character's psi potential, but also reduces his maximum HP. Congratulations, you just became a wizard - without having to pick a restrictive class! Instead, an in-game action (taking a pill that unlocks psychic powers) unlocked the potential for you to learn specific abilities (magic spells). There is no reason why a fantasy game wouldn't allow that, too - you meet a wizard, do a quest for him, he is grateful and offers you apprenticeship. Now magic spells are unlocked as things you can learn on levelup. The points you invest into learning magic can't be invested into combat or diplomacy, so you're not going to be as good a fighter or diplomat as one who doesn't learn magic. It's kinda like multiclassing, except without the artificial construct of "class".

You can also make different skills not equal in cost.

 

[DraQ]

So how many skills are you planning to implement? You just named 3 arbitrary things that I just came up with, but a single class can easily cover this 3 and dozens of others.

In a class-based system if you have e.g. 12 classes they will 99% cover every possible trope, concept and skill that you can encounter in an average fantasy rpg.

U wot m8

Ok let's try a little experiment

Let's take those 12 classes and try to make a classless system that covers the same breath of possibilities as those classes do

Step 1: take all the skills and abilities those classes have
Step 2: make all those skills and abilities selectable by players when they create or level up characters
Step 3: you now have a classless system that has the exact same amount of possibilities as the class based system, except actually there's more possibilities as you can combine abilities more freely than in the class based system

Let's say you have the geisha, a monk/masseuse/courtesan

What if you want to play a sorceress who's good at massaging and sex?

Well, you can't, because massaging and fucking are abilities exclusive to the geisha.

In a classless system, you can easily create a sorceress/masseuse/courtesan, as easily as you can create a monk/masseuse/courtesan.

Precisely. Classless or class-based you have to code mechanics for all the things characters can possibly do.
Except in class-based those things are packed together and canned, while in classless you are free to compose your own character. You know, to roleplay with.

 

[Siobhan]

Per character classless is going to be much more finely grained. In your example you are simply broadening the scope to achieve the same level of complexity.

Correct. I'm only comparing single-character classless against party with classes, mostly to emphasize that the question classes VS class-less doesn't make much sense in a vacuum because we can shift complexity around. Another example along those lines would be a class-based system where a lot of the progression actually happens through upgradable equipment, which could easily have the complexity level of classless with partial respec. The question of classes VS class-less is ill-posed unless i) we fix a number of additional parameters (and how those should be fixed is the source of disagreements in this thread), or ii) somebody comes up with abstract definitions of those terms that apply equally to PCs, parties, equipment, resources, and so on; that would be cool and please my inner mathematician, but isn't gonna happen.

 

[Azarkon]

Precisely. A battlemage in a class system either requires multiclassing, which not all class-based systems have, or a special battlemage class.

This is like saying skill-based systems require feats to represent any ability that can't be represented with a skill, so it's bad, because not all skill-based systems have feats.

Multi-classing exists for a reason. The same reason "gamey" implementations of feats exist in skill-based systems.

But as already mentioned in this thread, Underrail already solves this problem elegantly: if you want to be able to use psi you need to take a pill that unlocks your character's psi potential, but also reduces his maximum HP. Congratulations, you just became a wizard - without having to pick a restrictive class! Instead, an in-game action (taking a pill that unlocks psychic powers) unlocked the potential for you to learn specific abilities (magic spells). There is no reason why a fantasy game wouldn't allow that, too - you meet a wizard, do a quest for him, he is grateful and offers you apprenticeship. Now magic spells are unlocked as things you can learn on levelup. The points you invest into learning magic can't be invested into combat or diplomacy, so you're not going to be as good a fighter or diplomat as one who doesn't learn magic. It's kinda like multiclassing, except without the artificial construct of "class".

Sorry, but that is incredibly not elegant. Basically, you're saying that there should be feats that are so powerful - like being a psyker - that they practically define the character, while other feats come in the form of "+5% accuracy," with no proper conceptual or design guide line to distinguish the two. This is the opposite of elegant and it only becomes worse when you consider that the "psyker" feat must now be made a prerequisite to every other psionic feat in the game. So the player is forced to figure out which feat is a super feat in the game using spoiler guides in order to plan his or her character, because some of these super feats are even hidden and not available at the beginning of the game. Congratulations?

What if you want your character to have had a magic education before starting the game?

Simple, add Daggerfall-style character traits that you can buy during character creation. "Was a wizard's apprentice" could be one such trait that is bought for the value of, say, 3 skill points or whatever.

So now you want to introduce "traits" in addition to "feats" just to fill in the gap of not having "classes." This is the problem I've described, all along, with skill-based design philosophies: their allergy to classes!

 

[Azarkon]

Bullshit. For example, when you get sent to prison for crime in TES, the way the game simulates you serving time is precisely by permanently decreasing some of your skills. And feats get lost, being replaced by other feats, in more or less any game with feats.

Now you're just pulling arbitrary definitions out of your ass. Magic items can give you a bonus to skills in numerous games. Magic potions and spells can increase (or decrease) skills temporarily or permanently in numerous games.

You're arguing with nit picks, not surprising for someone who abuses semantics to make it seem like multi-classing is skill learning, or that "powers" and "skills" are equivalent in fantasy. Skill is a learned proficiency, which unless you are new to the English language, cannot stand for "power" or "position" or "motivation" or "trait" or "membership" or "identity." The point is that skill is only one small aspect of a character; so skill-based systems must introduce a host of other orthogonal features in order to represent the rest of the character. By contrast, class neatly encapsulates all of these features. It allows designers to elegantly implement, most of all, unique game play experiences, typically at the cost of customization.

Since development resources are always finite in the real world, skill-based systems are necessarily limited to a set of "samey" archetypes that happen to make use of a small list of interacting skills. Typically some combination of mage, warrior, thief, with the only distinguishing factor being which spells you cast, which weapons you used, what armor you wore, and what kind of thief skills you utilized. The best case scenario for skill-based systems is, in fact, games like Freedom Force where characters are defined by a bag of abilities that can be neatly modeled as skills. But that was a character system designed for a skill-based system, rather than a skill-based system actually being expressive enough to model any character.

Contrast that with class-based games where character mechanics can, and often are, genuinely much more wild, creative, and distinguishing - because designers don't have to fall into this trap of decomposing every class into its constituent particles and then filling in the massive gaps between them to create a coherent skill-based system.

 

[anvi]

And when the class based games are like WoW which have a huge talent tree that lets you build your character in multiple different ways, then it is miles better than the goofy simple classless system.

You skipped over the part that in nearly any patch, most classes are second-tier/worthless, and the massive majority of all specs are worthless.

Still beats classless.

 

[J1M]

Class-based has an advantage I haven't seen mentioned yet. Characters have a "skill level" in the classes they have levels in. An NPC can require the party have a level 5 Paladin for an assignment. In a classless system you'd have to have a requirement for level 4 swords, level 2 turn-undead, level 2 enhancement magic, level 2 healing magic, level 5 fear resistance, etc. to simulate this. Quite frankly, unless those requirements were explicitly shown to the player (which would trash the verisimilitude classless advocates prefer) most people would just consider whether the quest was available or not to be a bug.

It wouldn't at all be out of place to have content in a class-based game that requires a character with at least one level of Wizard and Rogue, and since those are professions, characters can simply state that and it doesn't feel jarring.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Class-based has an advantage I haven't seen mentioned yet. Characters have a "skill level" in the classes they have levels in. An NPC can require the party have a level 5 Paladin for an assignment. In a classless system you'd have to have a requirement for level 4 swords, level 2 turn-undead, level 2 enhancement magic, level 2 healing magic, level 5 fear resistance, etc. to simulate this. Quite frankly, unless those requirements were explicitly shown to the player (which would trash the verisimilitude classless advocated prefer) most people would just consider whether the quest was available or not to be a bug.

The assignment's requirements would be based on what the NPC required of the level 5 paladin, not a direct port of the level 5 paladin to the classless system.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

And when the class based games are like WoW which have a huge talent tree that lets you build your character in multiple different ways, then it is miles better than the goofy simple classless system.

You skipped over the part that in nearly any patch, most classes are second-tier/worthless, and the massive majority of all specs are worthless.

Still beats classless.

You should really play Freedom Force. A great tactical RPG that exudes charm and character. It can be challenging at times too, even on normal difficulty. The graphics are colorful and clean, and have aged very well despite being a 3D game from 2000. It will change your perspective on classless systems. It and its expansion are practically a steal at 6 USD on GoG. https://af.gog.com/game/Freedom_Force?as=1649904300

 

[Siobhan]

An NPC can require the party have a level 5 Paladin for an assignment. In a classless system you'd have to have a requirement for level 4 swords, level 2 turn-undead, level 2 enhancement magic, level 2 healing magic, level 5 fear resistance, etc. to simulate this.

That's presupposing a specific level of granularity, i.e. that a classless system must have very fine-grained skills. But that's not the case. Deus Ex effectively uses a classless system, but the granularity is very rough, with the choice of augs encoding very broad stroke differences in character builds. So you could easily have a skill (or trait, call it whatever you like) that clusters together various paladin-like traits and can be upgraded independently. Paladin is admittedly a tricky case because it is a hybrid class or subclass, but the prototypical classes are straight-forward. For instance, Rogue: scratch sneaking, pickpocket, lockpicking, climbing, backstabbing, all of that gets rolled into the Thievery skill. Your Paladin Level 5 check then becomes something like "fighting 3+ & holy rituals 3+".

 

[J1M]

An NPC can require the party have a level 5 Paladin for an assignment. In a classless system you'd have to have a requirement for level 4 swords, level 2 turn-undead, level 2 enhancement magic, level 2 healing magic, level 5 fear resistance, etc. to simulate this.

That's presupposing a specific level of granularity, i.e. that a classless system must have very fine-grained skills. But that's not the case. Deus Ex effectively uses a classless system, but the granularity is very rough, with the choice of augs encoding very broad stroke differences in character builds. So you could easily have a skill (or trait, call it whatever you like) that clusters together various paladin-like traits and can be upgraded independently. Paladin is admittedly a tricky case because it is a hybrid class or subclass, but the prototypical classes are straight-forward. For instance, Rogue: scratch sneaking, pickpocket, lockpicking, climbing, backstabbing, all of that gets rolled into the Thievery skill. Your Paladin Level 5 check then becomes something like "fighting 3+ & holy rituals 3+".

I guess I could buy that everyone with access to holy magic can also turn undead, though that does seem a little restrictive. Does "holy rituals +3" grant a fear immunity aura? That is an important part of this quest!

If so, it seems pretty oppressive that your skill-based system doesn't allow for a holy caster that isn't immune to fear...

Also, are all melee weapons covered under fighting? Why would there be no distinction between a fencer and a barbarian with a maul...

I can see that several pages of logical arguments have not convinced the simulationists. Perhaps you are tactile learners. Here's an exercise for those of you who are advocates against using a class system: list the skills you would need to add to Pathfinder Kingmaker to pull the classes out of it.

 

[DalekFlay]

I'm a middle-ground guy so I'll say I like class guidance but not strict classes. I'm playing Greedfall right now (meh) and it has you pick a "class" but all that does is give you starting equipment and like one or two points in something. You can quickly choose to go another way, or combine other things (I did swords and guns both and ignored other rogue skills). I think that's roughly the best of both worlds.

 

[laclongquan]

That was a silly statement. To wit, a sorcerer is different from a wizard in many things, skills being the least of it.

If you, on a level-up, can freely chose to add a point to a Sorcerer "class" or to a Wizard "class", irrespective of what class you started as, or what classes you advanced as before - that makes Sorcerer and Wizard "classes" effectively a kind of skills. The fact that 3.5e has something explicitly called "skills" in addition to that doesn't have anything to do with them (and has everything to do with DnD authors' penchant to needlessly convolute things).

Which letter in S.I.L.L.Y do I use wrong here? First, there're rules in the universe. E=mC^2 for example. And in DnD 3.5 the rule change to you can advance to different classes from your base class. This universal rule has been modified from the stark and strict rule of previous DnD. The rule say you can, so you can. Whether you do it is irrevelant. Whether you like it is irrevelant

Specifically, in wizard->sorcerer. if there's a wizard who discover within herself the innate power of a sorceress... who are you to say she can not choose to advance in that direction, irrespectively of what's pure or not. Since the universe say she can, and she want to do it , so a big FUCK YOU is sent to all naysayers around~

Finally, since you are being ostrich, the difference between wizards and sorcerers go beyond skills. Let's say a wizard and a sorcerer has same stat build, same skill investment from level up, they still have big recognizable differences. A wizard of level 9 can cast spell at highest tier of 5, while sorcerer at tier 4. A wizard can cast only what spell he choose to remember at the beginning of the day, while a sorcerer can freely cast what spell they know, limit only by how many he can cast per day.

Your basic problem, is that you dont like DnD3.5

Now that is something you're kinda right about - though I don't like DnD in general, not 3.5e specifically. This has nothing to do with the argument here though. The point that I was arguing against is that you can have mechanics in a class-based system that you can't represent in a classless skill-based system. I just couldn't pass by such bullshit being stated, even though I myself prefer "soft" TDE-like classes to complete classlessness.

Nothing "kinda" about it. You dont like DnD period fucking dot. You suffer a common ail of all DM, you dont like rules set by others. If you can set the rule of C=300000 km/s flat, you would. Instead of the 299792458 m/s.

And the basic thing of DnD is that there must be rules. if you can not accept there're various rules of universe set down by others, as it has been said clearly from the start, you might as well not play games at all.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

E=mC^2 for example. And in DnD 3.5 the rule change to you can advance to different classes from your base class.

Finally, since you are being ostrich

You suffer a common ail of all DM, you dont like rules set by others. If you can set the rule of C=300000 km/s flat, you would. Instead of the 299792458 m/s.

how high do I need to be to understand this post

 

[Sykar]

I liked it the way Daggerfall and Morrowind did it, you have predefined classes but can make up your own. I guess that makes it kinda both at the same time?

 

[Max Damage]

Daggerfall/Morrowind/Oblivion didn't really have real classes though, more like quick skill/attribute presets. You're not restricted in what you can level up in any way, the affinity towards warrior/mage/thief skills is very soft limitation at best. Compare to Arena, where unique traits are locked behind each class, and you can't cast custom spells as Knight, or have your equipment never degrade as Acrobat.

 

[anvi]

And when the class based games are like WoW which have a huge talent tree that lets you build your character in multiple different ways, then it is miles better than the goofy simple classless system.

You skipped over the part that in nearly any patch, most classes are second-tier/worthless, and the massive majority of all specs are worthless.

Still beats classless.

You should really play Freedom Force. A great tactical RPG that exudes charm and character. It can be challenging at times too, even on normal difficulty. The graphics are colorful and clean, and have aged very well despite being a 3D game from 2000. It will change your perspective on classless systems. It and its expansion are practically a steal at 6 USD on GoG. https://af.gog.com/game/Freedom_Force?as=1649904300

I played Freedom Force vs the 3rd Reich. It was alright.

 

[JarlFrank]

But as already mentioned in this thread, Underrail already solves this problem elegantly: if you want to be able to use psi you need to take a pill that unlocks your character's psi potential, but also reduces his maximum HP. Congratulations, you just became a wizard - without having to pick a restrictive class! Instead, an in-game action (taking a pill that unlocks psychic powers) unlocked the potential for you to learn specific abilities (magic spells). There is no reason why a fantasy game wouldn't allow that, too - you meet a wizard, do a quest for him, he is grateful and offers you apprenticeship. Now magic spells are unlocked as things you can learn on levelup. The points you invest into learning magic can't be invested into combat or diplomacy, so you're not going to be as good a fighter or diplomat as one who doesn't learn magic. It's kinda like multiclassing, except without the artificial construct of "class".

Sorry, but that is incredibly not elegant. Basically, you're saying that there should be feats that are so powerful - like being a psyker - that they practically define the character, while other feats come in the form of "+5% accuracy," with no proper conceptual or design guide line to distinguish the two. This is the opposite of elegant and it only becomes worse when you consider that the "psyker" feat must now be made a prerequisite to every other psionic feat in the game. So the player is forced to figure out which feat is a super feat in the game using spoiler guides in order to plan his or her character, because some of these super feats are even hidden and not available at the beginning of the game. Congratulations?

Uuuh no, it is actually a good idea for various characters to not take the psi pill because it irrevocably and permanently lowers your max HP by a percentage, meaning that a melee or shotgun character who likes to get up close and into harm's way is worse off with it. Is it really worth it giving up a chunk of max HP to cast a handful of spells at a low level, when you specialize your character in non-spellcasting skills and abilities?

Also, no, none of the feats in the game are hidden, except for those you gain by doing something in-game. You can show all unavailable feats on levelup, and which prerequisites they have, so you can plan a build in advance. And getting the psyker feat doesn't require you to invest any points. You get it by swallowing a pill that unlocks your psi potential but also reduces your max HP. It comes with benefits and drawbacks.

Most weapon-associated feats also come with new abilities rather than being a simple +5% to hit. There's a feat that has your sword attacks inflict wounds on enemies, there's a feat that lets you do a stealthy sniper takedown with rifles and crossbows, there's a feat that lets you throw grenades faster, etc etc. No boring +[X]% stuff, but actual changes to how your character plays and what he can do. Underrail's feats have as much impact on your character as classes in D&D, except it's more flexible and you can try a broader variety of builds. Of course, you also have a greater risk of screwing your build up, but that's a small price to pay for the greater flexibility - and hey, some people even love trying to play with unorthodox builds that seem unviable at first glance.

A pal of mine once made an "Argonian Pearl Diver" in Morrowind, with his major skills being athletics and acrobatics even though those are pretty useless. Why? Because the game allowed him to and he wanted to give it a try. I once played a techno-mage in Arcanum who was shit at both magic and tech because magical and technical aptitudes cancel each other out. It was a shit character, but I gave it a try because I could, and it was fun.

A good way of designing feats is to not have any boring generic "this feat gives you a higher to hit percentage" at all, and have every feat add a powerful or at least interesting ability to your character. Feats should offer horizontal character growth, while vertical character growth is governed by skills. Increasing your melee skill makes you better at hitting things with melee weapons. Taking the "dual wielding" feat lets you wield two melee weapons at once. Taking the "sweeping attack" feat lets you perform one attack that hits two or more enemies.

If your classless system has skills that increase your effectiveness at a certain action, say, every point invested into melee weapons increases hit chance by 1%, but then also has feats that do exactly the same thing, like a feat that gives +10% to hit chance on all melee weapons, it's a badly designed system because of the redundancies within it. It's not a fault of classless systems themselves, it's a fault of that particular system, just how, for example, bards being entirely useless is not a fault of class-based systems or bards in general, but of that particular system making bards useless.

What if you want your character to have had a magic education before starting the game?

Simple, add Daggerfall-style character traits that you can buy during character creation. "Was a wizard's apprentice" could be one such trait that is bought for the value of, say, 3 skill points or whatever.

So now you want to introduce "traits" in addition to "feats" just to fill in the gap of not having "classes." This is the problem I've described, all along, with skill-based design philosophies: their allergy to classes!

It's not to fill in any gap, it's to fulfill a specific function. The thing with class-based systems is that "class" collects various different functions under an umbrella.

Our beloved example of the geisha would be such an umbrella. As a functional monk/masseuse/courtesan she would have the following elements:
- she is good at unarmed combat, giving massages, and having sex (all three of which are skills)
- she has a certain educational background which taught her calligraphy and social etiquette (which is a background)
- she knows a couple of special attacks that allow her to attack pressure points on the enemy's body to cause debuffs (which are abilities)

In a classless system, you would pick each of these elements separately. The background would be something like "Courtly Education". The skills are bought with skill points. The abilities are either bought, too, or learned in-game from trainers based on prerequisites (you can learn special unarmed pressure point attacks if your unarmed combat and massage skills are high enough).

Each of these elements have a specific function.

Skills = vertical ability. How good are you at this activity?
Abilities (or feats, or whatever you wanna call them) = horizontal ability. How many different special actions can you perform?
Background = pre-chargen history. What did you do before the start of the game, and what are the benefits and drawbacks you gain from it?

Class-based systems are basically just pre-packaged kits made from these individual elements.
In a classless system, you allow the player to package these elements however he wants.

Class-based has an advantage I haven't seen mentioned yet. Characters have a "skill level" in the classes they have levels in. An NPC can require the party have a level 5 Paladin for an assignment. In a classless system you'd have to have a requirement for level 4 swords, level 2 turn-undead, level 2 enhancement magic, level 2 healing magic, level 5 fear resistance, etc. to simulate this.

No you don't. In a classless system you can have an NPC offer a quest to "Someone who is capable of dealing with liches" when the object of the quest is to kill a lich. Why restrict it to a level 5 paladin in particular? Have you ever encountered a quest so pointedly specific that it required exactly one type of character, and only that type of character? It feels pretty artificial to be honest. Nobody would offer jobs that way.

How jobs would instead be offered:
Hear ye, hear ye, brave adventurers of the land!
I require someone to deal with an undead problem in my basement. I dumped my dead relatives there years ago and forgot to bury them, now they rose up and haunt my wine cellar. If you are capable of dealing with common undead, please report to 45 Retard Street.
or:
My daughter is sick and nobody in this town has a cure for her. Whoever manages to cure her from her sickness will be richly rewarded!

Rather than making the quest exclusive to a class, you just tell the player what the quest is about. NPCs who give out quests have a thing they want done and are willing to pay whoever is capable of doing it. Therefore, the only prerequisite for taking the quest should be the ability to do it, not being a certain character class or whatever. Yes, you might now say "But the quest about curing the sick daughter requires a cleric because only clerics have healing magic!" but that's a bad way of thinking about quests. Restrictive and artificial. Why is using healing magic the only way to cure her? Can't an alchemist collect some herbs and prepare a cure? Maybe a devious witch can even offer a charm with the promise that it heals her if she wears it around her neck, but actually it's just a placebo that does nothing. Hey, wow, if you think about quests in the terms of "What are the possible actions players can perform, considering the skills and abilities available in the ruleset?" rather than "Which particular classes would be able to solve that quest?" you end up with a more open-ended and C&C heavy quest design.

No questgiver in their right mind would say "Yeah I need someone to deal with the undead in my basement but if you're not a level 5 paladin I'm not gonna let you try, sorry."

If the quest requires you to be part of a certain faction - like Paladin and Cleric being stand-ins for "is member of a religious faction" - then that can also be solved by a classless system. Just have factions for the player to join. Done.