I agree, even though I probably prompted the complaint.
In general I think balance concerns are poor counter-arguments to new ideas, because ultimately balance can be restored by a function of math and new ideas add to game features, and featureful systems makes for a better game moreso than just good balance does.
Despite the fact that I just did it in another thread, I don't feel like I'm making particularly strong arguments overall if I write 'X needs to be better' or 'Y shouldn't be improved'. Good ideas are ultimately good ideas, balance can follow.
I also agree that the overall game is somewhat balanced around combat characters, and there is sometimes a certain amount of resistance from players to ideas which would improve some archetypes at the notional expense of combat archetypes. I do think that some of this resistance tends to exaggerate the negative impacts improvements to support skills would have, and it does tend to downplay how powerful combat archetypes are overall.
I am just as guilty of viewing the game and the game balance through the lens of combat and conflictive competition, and how certain elements will give advantages or disadvantages to whatever aspect of that. Who benefits, who loses, how does it effect the chessboard overall.
I think it's important to be cognizant of this perspective, so things don't get wildly unbalanced and one or another factions get wiped out suddenly, but I agree that these archetypes don't always need to be the first concern for every balancing discussion.