On wands: a "1st level dungeon" (ie one in which the characters are expected to rise to 2nd level) will have 13 encounters at CR1. Each of thsoe encounters should net an average of 300 gp. That is a total of 3900 gp. It is not unreasonable to assume that a 750 gp wand (or a 375 gp half charged wand, even) would be available somewhere therein.
On scrolls: PC spellcasters get access to scribe scroll for a reason.
On the role of the wizard: if all you are doing during the day, yes, the low level wizard is a loadstone on the back of the rest of the party. But, really, what is the point of playing a role-playing game like D&D if all you are going to engage in is combat. this is my problem with the "re-balancing" of 3.5 and the things we have seen about 4e -- it is all about combat. hell, even social encounters are "combat" now. Only combat capability matters as far as "balance" goes, which means that only combat matters as far as "adventures" go. they turned the dungeon -- and adventuring environment -- into an arena in the Design and Development article.
Basically, the way I se eit is that if the PCs are adventurers and explorers, they are going to plan well, prepare well, and take things at a pace that allows them the best chances of success. they are going to go into the unknown and, yes, they are going to have to fight the things that live there, but they are also going to discover things, have to solve puzzles, and produce maps and journals of their adventures. These things seem to have been forgotten not just by D&D, but, judging by many of the responses in this thread and others, by the people that play the game too.
Which is fine and all. i'll play my way, you play yours. But it is also why I am running 1E instead of getting all cranked about 4E. The things I have heard about 4E have reminded me what I really like about D&D, and 4E ain't it.
Especially in regards to the resource management and exploration aspects of the game.
