Quote Originally Posted by Duelle View Post
Between XI's Ranger (which outside of the game's terrible ammo design was bordeline okay) and WoW's hunter (which despite having few, if any, cast times was comparable to caster DPS), it's not impossible or OP as you propose. The only thing a class of that archetype has over other ranged classes is kiting ability, and even that's more a PvP thing.
RNG in XI also had the restriction of not having an in-built auto attack, instead requiring either a macro or an add-on.
WoW's hunter had its pet, and also shared XI's RNG's ammo restriction (though they changed that. kinda).
In addition, while these two classes were ranged melee classes, they weren't the only ones capable of ranged melee damage. Nearly ever class in both games has something they can equip to help them do ranged damage. XIV doesn't have that. Sure, the DRG jumps and NIN ninjitsu+throwing daggers have range on them, but they don't even come close to a bard's basic auto attack.
People cite the rather balanced FFXI RNG (though balance is a questionable statement here...) and WoW Hunter as good examples of high damage ranged DPS classes...but there's another example from two other games that shows why they can be a bad idea.
EQ1 and EQ2's Ranger class.
At first, EQ1's rangers were actually a bit of a joke. Sure, they had some good bows and could dual wield and cast spells, but both Warriors and Rogues did melee better and druids did casting better.
Then they got auto attack for ranged weapons, along with a rather unique Alternate Advancement ability that changed them forever.
This ability? "Endless Quiver"
Guess what it did.
Ammo restrictions went out the window, and they were free to stack haste to make them shoot arrows like a machine gun. This was also the time when bows actually became comparable to melee weapons in terms of speed, which was a severe problem affecting their efficiency at the time.
Later, they got another ability called "Headshot"
This ability basically let them randomly one-shot mobs that were too weak for them. They became AOE pulling nightmares, and now "HS Parties" are a favorite way to grind experience.
Now, since EQ1 makes use of resists and such, Rangers aren't all-powerful, but the fact that they deal so much raw damage without burning any kind of resource makes them invaluable in pretty much any situation now.

Rangers in EQ2 have the same issue. While it fluctuates, many times they're capable of outdamaging other classes in the "scout" archetype (which includes bards. Making EQ2 one of two games I've played outside FFXIV to give bards bow abilities as a viable option) simply because positioning means nothing to them.

So basically, SE has a reason for ensuring the class that doesn't have to worry about positioning or cast times has at least SOME for of limitation to keep a party of 4 bards, 2 tanks, and 2 healers from being overpowered.