Are some classes not needed under the 2E artchype system?

[GM Thrawn]

Background

With the way that templates work (which I like), are there some classes that really are not as needed? We already have an example of removing the cavalier class, converting it to an archtype. The classic cavalier is likely a fighter with the cavalier archtype, but we now get the variety of allowing cleric cavaliers or even wizard cavaliers as character options.

Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger for example, seem like they would make excellent archtypes, allowing them to be added to other classes instead of necessitating a class on their own. Each of these are a martial class, that are variations off a fighter. I'm going to use the barbarian as my example.

Barbarian

The barbarian is a classic character filling the martial role, with a uncivilized warrior that depends more on their rage and ferocity than their training. A fighter with the barbarian archtype could easily fill that character trope. However, barbarians are not limited to warriors. A barbarian priest or druid servince as a tribal shaman, a barbarian bard serving as a skald, or even a sneakier barbarian rogue all make sense. Converting barbarian to an archtype instead of a class would allow it to fullfill all of these roles, giving more build options while at the same time simplifying the game by removing a class.

Barbarian Dedication (Archtype Dedication Feat lvl 2)
You are a barbarian, using your rage in battle to help defeat your enemies.
You gain rage (insert the description of rage.)
Special: (insert caveat about single rage)

Other feats-
Turn Totem into a feat.
Turn a selection of the other barbarian feats into archtype feats. (Most of them probably aren't needed.)

What about multiclass?
Of course, mixing barbarian into other classes can be done when the rest of the multiclass templates get created. (I'd argue that not having archtypes for all core rulebook classes in the core rulebook would be a mistake.) However, I'm not sure that the class itself is needed once th archtype exists. (I think both Ranger and Paladin are likely in the same situation.)

I welcome thoughts and debate both pro and con. Just putting another view out there based in my early playtest experience, that might create some useful debate.

[AndIMustMask]

there was some talk here and there previously of making some of the advanced and/or hybrid classes into archetypes (such as the cavalier in the playtest), like an archetype for the magus for people to get some spellcasting/spell combat/spell strike action going.

though, some classes may be too unique to simply make an archetype of--take the oracle for example, as well as things like the summoner or the various occult classes--so i think the devs will be playing it by ear.

in a perfect world with infinite pagecount (or book release schedules where the ideas could spring fully-formed onto the page from the dev's minds), i'd like to see a base and multiclass version of all the previous classes (with perhaps the exception of the hybrid classes like slayer, which were very specifically mashups already, and were mainly differentiate by their core gimmicks like inspiration or panache, which seems perfectly suited for general archetypes) so you could have a sort of sliding scale on how much you want to lean into a certain character type or set of actions--for example, a barbarian/ranger and a ranger/barbarian would be very different things from their base classes class feats and extra class abilities, despite sharing things like animal companions and rage

[ErichAD]

You could certainly pair it down to fighter, mage, thief and archetype from there. You'd need to take care with class ability compatibility though. Opening up too many options gives you many possible dead end options and unexpected synergy.

Ranger and Alchemist both seem bare enough that they'd be better as archetypes than full classes.

[Greyblade23]

I think this would increase the balancing difficulty immensely. Why not go all the way and remove classes entirely?