If there were such a universal paradigm of balance, and there were particular rules that predictably fell outside it, and those rules needed to be there, then yes. Since this rather absurd premise is false, no.
Strawman, you have created one.
Certainly you must agree that there is a paradigm of balance. It's simply not entirely universal, but it's adaptive. Combat everyone should have a role and strength within that role, with no class clearly outclassed. Out of combat, each character should be able to contribute in a number of situations, and no character should be dominant in the majority of situations.
This is not a universal paradigm. It will not cover the situation where the DM tries to make a game about growing crops and one person takes the background "farmer" and 4 take other backgrounds. But it's a pretty good paradigm for most D&D games.
Second, if you examine the monster rules in 3E and 4E, in an attempt to bring balance, they made most of the monsters feel weak. They lost many iconic abilities. There were monsters you were not allowed to play as PCs. Many of them. And they DID NOT ACCOMPLISH THEIR GOAL.
I am saying that Next should give up on trying to balance the monster PCs, and give DMs rules for them, and let them use the rules if they think it's fun. That way players get to REALLY FEEL like they're playing the monster, not playing a bad, half-baked version of the monster, AND it doesn't result in a DM getting blindsided by monster characters doing ridiculous things (the monster characters can still do ridiculous things, but the DM should be prepared).
