The other sub question is
Do we seek also a surnatural-less Ranger?
We shouldn't. Not for the PHB anyway.
Because D&D is supernatural by default and the ranger should be able to deal with supernatural issues. A lev
I am not sure what you are talking about when you say "occupations" a fighter can be a slaver or a soldier or a noble or part of the local mafia or own a trading company. A Rogue, Wizard or Cleric can do all those things too.
Most PCs have the occupation of "adventurer" or "hero" althous some venture out into similar society-type jobs and don't see a class really having much bearing on that.
I mean Ranger skills are a collection of skills to do a job.
Rangers aren't skilled at outdoorman shop, fighting, zoology, botany, and tracking for nothing.
It's because..
The Marquis said "Kill all the invading orcs"
The Elf king said "Kill all the Drow"
A dragon eat your parents so want to Kill the evil dragons.
The church declared a crusade so you must "Kill all the yuanti"
You are from ancient bloodlines and must "Protect these towns"
Fey are stealing kids for their armies. "Protect the children".
Desert caravans are being raided and attacked. "Protect the Sandy Road"
The Lords of the North want you to "Protect the North. Man the Wall"
The mages scry fiendish influences. You must "Close the portal. Kill all the demons".
Outdoorsmanship is just a tool to get the job done. Same with archery and TWF.
Why would rangers leave magic off the table of tools?
That's the issue. A ranger wouldn't.
People want to play noncasting rangers to mimic characters from
low magic settings. But by default, D&D is a
moderately magical setting. It makes sense that Rangers would consult druids, wizards, and fey for magic in D&D.