For the sake of perspective, I feel compelled to point out that we really don't know yet what the specific changes are. It's probably too soon to make blanket statements like "WotC is forgetting (something)" or similar. I think we all have concerns, and hopes, and it's natural to voice them and that's fine...but it's good to keep an open mind too.
I mean, for example, it's not beyond possibility that a wizard in 4e might have some kind of at-will magic bolt that does crummy damage but strikes as a ranged touch. Inferior even to 1st level spells, but replaces the "crossbow" with something he can at least feel somewhat useful with...but doesn't appreciably increase his real power level. He'll still want to manage his prepared spells, but will still be able to contribute magically without them.
One interesting thing about scrolls and wands, since they so frequently surface in this discussion, is that they are most useful at low levels, when saves are low enough that these devices have a chance of working. Yet, these are the very levels that wands are, by and large, not very available due to cost. By the time a PC can casually drop two grand or more on a wand of higher than 1st level, unless that wand is the requisite 'healstick,' it's usually a lot less effective in play, due to limited duration and save DC.
I'm not saying that makes them useless by any means. I'm just saying that based on my own personal experience (which is of course indicative of my play style, and no one else's
), it's rare for a PC to spend a lot of money on stuff that will be going bye-bye. If I can buy a ring of protection +1, or a wand of Knock...well, doors can be bashed down, and that ring will increase my touch AC too. Score. I don't think this is because I'm unreasonable, or that I'm bad at resource management, or because I'm shortsighted, foolish, or am failing to use the system to its fullest. It's because gold is valuable...and it too is a resource to be managed. Ultimately, if a spell is of sufficiently questionable utility that it rarely needs to be prepared, it's of limited enough utility that I don't want to spend much money on keeping items that cast it around either. Scrolls help with this issue, as they're considerably cheaper, and (more importantly) more often found as treasure, which results in large stockpiles of captured scrollage. Even so, it's a crapshoot if any given spell you have on scroll is desirable at any given moment, and the really GOOD scroll spells usually wind up being cast into spellbooks.
My point in saying all this is that I think there is something to be said for the general idea that it would be nice if casters were decoupled a bit from the 'if you don't want to prep it, scroll it or do without' paradigm and had more options for how they managed their resources. Not that the management aspect was removed entirely, mind, because I agree that's part of the fun of playing a caster in the first place. Still, nothing from Wizards yet has suggested to me that spell management will be removed.
I could easily see a system where a wizard "prepares" his per-encounter spells available in a period of time, for example. Fewer slots for such spells than he has spells to put in them means choices must be made. Not to mention, and I think this is important to point out...and I probably should have done so earlier...hee...but one of the stated goals of 4e is to reduce item-dependency. Not JUST on wands and scrolls, but all the other misc items that wizards normally accrue over their spans that cast this or that or provide constant bonuses. I think it's reasonable that if you want to reduce a wizard's need for external power in items, they're going to need some resources that don't evaporate on the scale of entire days of encounters. How, specifically, that will work, is still up in the air.
I think it's good we're talking about it, but lets keep the whole thing in perspective. It's way too soon to get -upset- about it.
It's all cool, I didn't insult anyone, sir dude.
