As a very long-time darktable user (since the 1.x times, I think 1.4 or 1.6), I feel like darktable as a fundamental philosophy sort-of built into it that you need a bit of theory or understanding of how it works to really take advantage of it. And I think it’s actually a good thing, because it fills a niche and allows you to do things to your photo that no other photo editor allows you to do in a bare-metal sort of way.
That is why I disagree with the OP in many respects. Drawn masks for example are pretty easy to use once you get to know them, and the brush works well. The vector points of the brush are quite useful for adjusting it.
And in my opinion, having multiple tone mappers such as Sigmoid, Filmic (and perhaps eventually AgX), is a huge strength of darktable as in other editors you just have to accept whatever sort of tone mapper or Raw to display-referred conversion that build in themselves and you have no control over that. Of course, there could be a few changes that might make sense, like merging WB and color calibration.
In my opinion, the way darktable works, although it seems confusing at first, is actually very consistent in its approach. I don’t think it should be changed or made “easier” by hiding anything, or making the interface more Lightroom like, because the very strength of darktable is its philosophy.
And I know some people criticize open source, but I think the very reason why darktable can exist and be so unique and powerful is precisely because it doesn’t need to be a commercial product. In fact, I think darktable is one of the very rare programs where open source actually made it superior than if it was a commercial program, because it doesn’t need to target those who want an easy solution.
I really do think darktable is great, and I think very little should be changed with regard to the sort of suggestions the OP (and many other beginners make).