13th Age does it with its core book. And that's one book, covering both player options and DM options in a single volume.
I haven't read or played 13th Age so I can't speak to it. Most importantly, I cannot agree or disagree that 13th Age "does it" - not only have I not read the game, but the "it" is pretty vague, poorly defined. Slightly less importantly, I don't know if, given the same scrutiny D&D gets, 13th Age would be broadly found to "do it" satisfactorily. It is not clear to me that 13th Age is judged the way D&D is judged.
I'm pretty sure D&D can manage with three books. It'd just require a little editing to cut down on the bloated spell list, or some of the rather profligate page-wasting in the DMG.
Well, you see there's a thing - D&D is expected (by the players) to have a lot of spells (and skills) that, quickly reading, are handled completely differently in 13th Age.
D&D is locked into an overall design architecture, and folks scream bloody murder every time they change something. Again, quickly reading, this seems a large part of why Heinsoo and Tweet made their game - to jettison a lot of legacy, and had a freedom to do so that D&D just doesn't have.
It has not in any way been established that you can "do it" just as easily with any game architecture.