But what about mechanics? How does one create a consistent, readily comprehensible class when within a single class you can have:
* choose your spells ever day, cast by slots, boost the damage using higher level slots
or
* know a few spells, cast them as much as you want
Well, getting back to the crux of the thread, how does one create a consistent, readily comprehensible class when within a single class you can have
* substantial melee combat powers, or
* a comprehensive spell list, or
* pet summoning?
A less flippant answer: maybe we don't have these things anymore. Do they provide meaningful difference? From my perspective, the operative word in both of the descriptions you provide is "cast." It is casting that is the definitive trait -- what you are casting, provided that it is as effective as any alternative, is irrelevant.
We also are missing the vast majority of the warlock class. presumably, spells are only one part of what the warlock does, just as mage's schools of wizardly add additional features that enable them to do their spell thing more aligned with their concept. I would expect light armor, additional weapon options, curse/hex abilities, etc. Things that make them more distinct than just spell casting and things that thematically link the different "tools" of the class beyond a class name.
Agreed. But I don't see the difference between no armor and light armor as being game-changing. Likewise the addition of more simple weapons to the wizard's loadout. In order to really affect play, these two things require a focus on Dexterity and Strength, neither of which are valuable ability scores to a caster. As a result I see these variations as largely cosmetic, easily rolled into a subclass.
Curses and hexes, as near as I can tell, are just arcane spells that have for some reason been divorced from the arcane spell list. Can you shed any light on why they should be counted separately?