Agreed, completely. But the balance goes both ways, I believe; a character with fewer attack powers but more utility powers would be a step back towards the "I-can't-do-nuthin'-but-heal!" cleric concept of older editions, which 4E was expressedly trying to get away from.
Does this power cause that?
It's like Plane Sailing said: superstructure versus foundation. This power breaks from the "standard mold" in a way that challenges some of the most basic assumptions of the game's structure. (This structure exists to preserve balance and fairness in play.)
What about this situation is unbalanced or unfair?
If this is the kind of (allegedly) "exception-based" design that you're willing to accept, why not an At-Will power that does 2[W] + modifier damage at first level?[/quote]
If there's something else making it balanced, sure. MAybe it requires a dagger or an unarmed strike?
Why not a Controller with the HP and number of Surges of a Defender?
If there's something else about the class that makes that ability balanced, sure. Maybe all of their powers are weaker than every other controller's powers of that level.
Why not a class that can gain its Paragon Path at 1st-level? Why not have a class that gets to pick two Paragon Paths simulateously?
The paths would have to suck in order to be balanced, but sure. I'd probably never play the class, but some people would.
Why not 1st-level daily powers that deal damage like 29th-level daily powers?
I can't think of anything that would allow that power to be balanced, but if it somehow is, great.
All of these examples are "exceptions", but I don't believe any of them fit into "exceptions-based" design. Instead, they fit into "game-breaking" design.
Not if they're balanced.
Is this change "game breakiing design"?
My, it sure is getting slippery on this slope
Given that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, it doesn't concern me much. Is there anything you see that's actually wrong with this instance, or is it all based on fear of the unknown future?