Depends on taste i suppose. I get where you're coming from, but it'd depend a bit how the system worked. A barbarian with 5 Con is damn near as hamstrung as the 5 Wis cleric, for instance and a low-Dex monk is a very sad panda, but i suppose a variant of the system that allocated different numbers of dice to multiple abilities in the case of MAD classes could work.
Having said that, the dice fall where they may. My first ever D&D game was 4d6 drop lowest, roll 7 times and discard the lowest result, then arrange as preferred. I rolled 11, 10, 8, 7, 7, 5, 4. Tell you what, as a keen youngster, that was deflating as hell, though my more-experienced DM was kind enough to let me throw those stats and re-roll.
Which is why I think stat generation methods will remain largely as they are in any future 6e. We allow players to pick every other aspect of their character, so why bind them to the whims of the dice for ability scores in particular? And this is especially relevant for new players, who are more likely to get discouraged if they feel underpowered at the table compared to someone who had better luck with the dice during chargen.
Though in reference to the original conversation, I agree I would love to see abilities being more relevant to classes even if they're not a prime requisite. Str in particular is wonderful for armoured frontline melee combatants and absolutely useless for anyone else. You can't even make a brutish Str-based rogue without being wildly suboptimal, given sneak attack is restricted to Dex weapons.
