Actually, whereas every other class says "The magicfingersman draws his spells from the magicfingersman spell-list", the Sorcerer is unique.
"The Sorcerer primarily draws his spells from the Sorc/Wiz spell list." It then goes on to talk about some Sorcerers ganking other spells through study.
This means that the only way a Sorc can be anywhere near as good as a Wizard is by carefully cherrypicking the best spells from every list. In other words "The better you are at optimising, the closer you'll get to just playing a character that's balanced."
That's bad. Sucking shouldn't actually be the baseline. Also, this doesn't look like a matter of "a rules loophole that shouldn't work". It looks like the actual intent is to let you take a couple of special non-Wizard spells, except the best way to make them balanced is allow spells from any spell list (or at least, any 0-9 spell list. Letting them choose Bard/Paladin/Assassin/Hexblade/Ranger spells could have strange results).
And yeah. Mearls has good ideas. That's it. Furthermore, he has given a rant on how he doesn't want to put a lot of effort or thought into the campaign world - except he's the designer. He shouldn't be the designer if he doesn't want to design. Furthermore, he has said that it's too hard to have DR in a system with scaling HP and scaling damage. Which is just stupid. That's easy. The hard thing to balance is a system where enemies of the same CR might have an AC of 10 or 25, and where your race might grant you a +1 to hit and damage, your sword might grant you +3 to hit and damage, and your belt might grant you +2 to hit and damage.
Yet that's seriously what he's doing. It sounds like he's just on crack (hey, it worked for Andy Collins in 3rd Ed!) and doesn't actually know how to make a game system.
Now, the memorising thing is weird, especially for people like me who weren't raised on the Vance novels. But spell levels can work just fine. Because it states "This is a 1st level spell. It is worth precisely that. This is a 3rd level spell. That's what it's worth. You can't trade up or down." As it stands, spell points can't ever work. This is why psionics can't work - which is different from the reason why I hate psionics and will never use them in a D&D game.
Basically, here it is. Take "magic missile". Some people make the mistake of thinking it's an awesome spell. At level 1, you nearly have as good a chance of hitting as the fighter does, so "auto-hit" doesn't matter, and by the time it makes a difference, you're throwing "no attack roll" and "ranged touch attack (see: always hits)" spells, and the damage wouldn't matter anyway. At level 1, the damage only matters against kobolds and cats. Luckily, you will seriously be fighting kobolds and cats at level 1.
At any rate, we'll pick that. Now, let's pick a level 4 spell: Acid Fog. Acid Fog is awesome. It deals damage, slows movement, reduces visibility and also makes a nice obstacle that gets in the way of enemy chargers. Paired with a Forcecage, you can utterly murderise people. Anyway, tell me, how many castings of Magic Missile are worth one Acid Fog?
If your answer was anything other than "None, AF is better than any number of MMs!" then you are wrong. This is the problem. Higher level spells are just plain better than lower level spells, and nothing can actually change this. You're not just giving them bigger numbers (if you were, then spell points would work), you're doing other things that outright win the game.
And that's why I disagree with spell points. One thing I do like about 4Ed is that everyone has "at will", "per encounter" and "per day" abilities.
Heh. What started as me just being rude about certain game designers now turned into a huge debate. And not a single "How does grapple work?" type question.