I mean, you're putting the cart before the horse.
The problem here is that the rules approach to Rangers in 3E and 5E (and arguably 4E) has been progressively more at odds with:
A) ALL portrayals of "rangers" in D&D fiction. Not just Drizzt. I can't think of a single Ranger in D&D fiction who cast a spell. Bloody Aragorn doesn't cast spells.
B) ALL portrayals of "rangers" in material that inspires D&D.
The problem is designers who have no idea what to do with Rangers, or who have progressively idiotically made them more and more magical because they couldn't think of anything else to do with them, and they were happy for Fighters (for some ungodly reason) to be the be-all and end-all of martial combat (rather than say making them primarily the "tough melee guy", which is literally 98% of Fighters in D&D fiction and fantasy fiction).
At this point we've moved from 1E/2E's Ranger who was very much a skilled martial type who later acquired a tiny smattering of spells (most people didn't even play that long), to 3E's Ranger who starts as a skilled martial, then abruptly gains some magic, and it's just a bit weird/messy, to 5E/1D&D's Ranger who is magical almost from the get-go, or indeed from the get-go with 1D&D, and is more like a permanent Fighter/Druid multiclass.
Indeed your whole analysis is problematic in that sense, because you're confusing the rules and the fiction. The fact is, the fiction doesn't flow from the rules, generally speaking, and the problem with a lot of D&D's rules-design is that it's not great for fantasy fiction in general, not even D&D fiction specifically. There's just too much "game-ism" and frankly a serious lack of ideas in a lot of the design team. I can sympathize because the last time they did go wild with the ideas, it was 4E and it wasn't universally well-received.