(...) balanced since spells normally do more damage than ranged physical attacks and they normally have greater range. .
That is not exactly true. Even on 5e which nerfed spell ranges a lot compared to 3.5e(without any complex build a lv 20 wizard can hit a fireball at 1200 feet), on 5e is possible to hit enemies at 1320 feet with it.
As for damage, damage is worthless if you can't see the enemy nor can't cast the spell. If a figther attacks 4 times per round, the caster needs to do 4 concentration checks(3.5e) or constituition check(5e), if the fighter has poisoned arrows, it can deal CON damage and kill the sorcerer in one round.
People who put caster VS fighter generally give the best spells to the caster and forget to give good weapons to the fighter.
I an not against giving more warcries to barbarians which acts like spell like abilities, manuvers that allow him to decapitate enemies and etc; but people who focus a lot on balance wanna just make casters less interesting rather than martial more interesting.
