Maybe I am old...I was playing back when the red book was out, well before the hardbound stuff. I know I may sound like some old bastard shouting at kids to get off his lawn, but its like this:
If your stats, and thusly the rules books, are the only way to make viable characters then your DM is doing it wrong.
Well, all editions since 3.0 have made stats more important because, since then, modifiers have increased and decreased linearly with ability scores, whereas in earlier editions, bonuses and penalties tended to only accrue on the higher or lower ends of the spectrum. Whereas in 3.0+, anything less than a 9 is at least a -1 and anything more than a 12 is a +1 or more, in AD&D (going by
OSRIC since I don't have an actual copy of 1st or 2nd edition) penalties don't appear for most abilities scores unless you have about a 6 or lower, and most bonuses aren't gained for anything less than at least a 15. And I don't have any copy or retro-clone to check, but I've heard that in OD&D, stats were just used to decide what races/classes you qualified for, and if you rolled really high you got a slight xp bonus.
This is why I'd be more willing to roll for stats for an older or retro-inspired game than for anything 3.0+.
As for the other discussion that popped up while I was typing this reply, I'd say 5e solves the 3e
Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit problem without the 4e problem of all classes using the same sort of framework.