D&D generally treats all spells the same, regardless of whether it's being cast by a wizard, cleric, or sorcerer. But should it?

This came up when I was thinking about spell components; does it really make sense for a spell to use the same components regardless of whether it is an arcane spell learned after years of study or a divine gift from you deity? For example, I could see all divine spells as being universally V-only, as they only involve uttering a prayer to your deity and the deity produces the effects, whereas sorcerers might not use components at all, as the magic is innate.

We could also consider things like an anti-magic field and other effects designed to thwart spellcasters. I think the issue here is that "magic" as a meta construct is being made into an in-universe thing; "magic" is not just one thing, but a collection of various supernatural effects that all work in completely different ways, and thus it doesn't make much sense that something like an anti-magic field would somehow thwart all of them. For example, one might imagine a hallow effect that renders fiends powerless, and so a warlock whose magic was given to them by a devil will find their magic no longer works within that hallowed area, while non-fiendish spellcasters are unaffected.

Part of this came from an idea for a big overhaul of 5e, part of which includes turning spells into more generic "powers", which could be arcane spells, miraculous wonders, sorceries, witchcraft, psionics, superpowers, or mutant abilities. There's some issues with this, such as not every supernatural ability being modeled well by the discrete packages that are spells, so there's definitely work to be done to make such a system functional. But the main thing is that I wouldn't expect all of these to adhere to the same rules. It just seems weird that the superhero who was bit by a radioactive flumph needs to do the same hand gestures and chanting as the wizard.

One way of handling this might be to come up with a list of different types of supernatural powers, such as the one in the previous paragraph, each with their own special rules. Sort of like an analogue of creature types, but for spells. Hence, a spell like Anti-Magic Field will specify which types of powers it works against. Perhaps part of those rules could be things like coming up with more types of spell components, listing out all the components a spell could use, and then only requiring specific components depending on what type of powers you have. For example, one component might be a prayer, which is only used to perform wonders, and not all wonders require prayers. So a spell may list a prayer as one of its components, but if you're an arcane caster or psion or mutant, you can ignore that component. The problem with this is that it requires listing a bunch of redundant components (e.g. a spell having either/both a prayer and/or incantation, depending on whether your a divine caster or an arcane caster).

Leaving homebrew aside, we're still left with the vanilla system that treats cleric spells the same as wizard spells, which makes it simpler for multiclass builds but still seems a bit strange. However, because of how expansive and complex the magic system is, any changes would require a lot of work to go through and adjust various spells or even create new ones. Some systems use a basic foundation of rules that then allow for emergent behavior, so making changes to those foundational rules is both pretty simple and will have a big impact; by contrast, D&D's magic system is pretty much the opposite, with each spell being its own isolated package of special rules that apply only to that spell, so making a small change in one place has pretty much no effect outside of that one specific spell. There are some general rules for spellcasting, but they make up a very tiny portion of the actual magic rules and don't affect that much.