Remathilis
Legend
Do you really think others who do not want to play themes and backgrounds want the extra complexity of lots of classes? I don't think someone who wants lower complexity, who is willing to drop the themes and backgrounds from the game, is going to feel like enhanced gameplay exists in a vast array of narrowly defined niche classes.
How much is "a lot"?
AD&D had 10 classes in the PHB. 2e had 9 (adding bard, losing monk and assassin). 3e had 11 classes (adding barbarian, monk, and sorcerer). Its only after 3.5 that we start seeing lots of oddball classes emerge. 4e added a bunch of classes, but I'm afraid few of them were really unique (vs. being grid-fills; warden and invoker, I'm looking at you). Even BECMI had a dozen classes by the time it was done (9 alone in the RC, though druid was for high level clerics and 3 were races-as-classes).
AT MINIMUM the Next PHB needs all the 3e PHB classes. I'd really like to see it cram warlock, warlord and assassin in as well for completeness. After that, we can debate if a swordmage demands its own class or if the avenger really is unique archetype or whether the game benefits from an artificer class. Its really counterproductive though to debate the merits of a ranger, paladin or barbarian at this point. Lets start figuring out if this game is going to need a beguiler, not a druid...