In character, sure. I agree with you.
In the meta-game world of D&D, the part with the rulebooks, there should be some separation between what some classes do best and what other classes do best. Otherwise, we should probably be using a classless system. Class is the mechanical means of distilling an archetype.
Well, yes and no. Classes perform several functions, one of which is archtype portrayal, others include bundleing mechanics, simplifying balance and world building. In 5e in particular part of the Archtype portrayal niche has been split off into the background mechanic.
Which I think is a good thing. For example 3e had half a dozen half-baked "Adventuring Errol Flynn" classes from the swashbuckler to the Dread Pirate. In 5 you just give a character the Sailor or Pirate background and you are good to go.
I want the ranger to be the best at being a stealthy, outdoorsy, wilderness warrior. He's not the best warrior; the fighter is. He's not the best at being at one with the wilderness -- the druid does that. He's not best at stealth; the rogue does that. But the ranger should combine the traits and do so in a way that can't be matched by others. Sure, you should be able to build a capable outdoorsman using a fighter or rogue class, or make a decent warrior out of a druid. But if the ranger isn't just a touch better at the combination, there's no reason to have the class in the game at all. My vision of the ranger says he doesn't need magic to hit that archetype. A magic-using ranger is OK -- I've played that class and enjoyed it -- but I'd still like an option that I see as a ranger that doesn't involve spellcasting.
If we're playing a classless game, it's a different story, of course. This is D&D we're talking about, though.
Sneaky, outdoorsy, warrior who is not as good as a rogue at sneaking, not as good as a druid at outdoorsy, and not as good as a fighter as a warrior, but still better than any of them in his element is an awfully narrow niche to hit. The solution, ever since AD&D, has been spells. And because it's such a narrow niche and the other classes are so good at what they do, the spells have been coming earlier and earlier in every edition until now in 5th they come at 2nd level.
It is possible to do it as a mundane class? Yes, but you need niche protection which really only happens only by using 3e style ability siloing where only Rangers can track because shut up.
And of course there is the question of "Is that really what a Ranger is?" The nature of what a Ranger is or should be has been probably the most debated core class since AD&D. Some people don't like spells, some want more spells. Some think Ranger = Archer. Some love TWF. Some think you should be Beastmaster/Dr. Doolittle.
You could honestly split it up into several classes, in fact that's been done too, with the Scout, Seeker, etc. What you wind up with is a battle on Mt. Nerdrage for which class is the true heir to the Mantle of Ranger. Usually with long awkwardly written yet erudite articles trying to explain why the Ranger should be X without ever quite admitting that really, we all just want to be Aragorn.
With all that in mind, I think that the 5e Ranger is a great class that hits a lot of the right notes. It's not perfect, because it's trying to be too many things to too many people, but I don't require perfection. I do think that the beastmaster probably should not need to spend his action to get his wolf to bite people. Klarg doesn't need to spend an action to get Ripper to bite people, why should the PCs?
