From RPG Digest
September 4, 2008
After an interesting play session last Friday, something occurred to me:

Fourth edition truly puts the nail in the coffin of vancian magic. The wizard I ran in that game felt much more like a traditional fantasy wizard. I felt very Gandalf, at least in terms of combat, and rituals had my back when it came to other tasks. Very fun.

I suppose that’s one of the things, though, that some folks don’t like about 4E: the abandoning of the Vancian system.

I’m interested, though: What do you all think? Whether or not you like 4E, are there good reasons to go with a “fire and forget” spell system? Do you personally prefer Vancian magic to the alternatives?

What makes a spell or power useful in Dungeons and Dragons?
There are, in my mind, a few possible criteria:

It should have opportunity for frequent use. Decipher script is limited in its use, Charm Person is not.
It should be useful to overcome a challenge. That challenge doesn’t have to be combat; it can be social, or it can be plot-related.
It should be something that can’t be done with mundane means. Light isn’t nearly as useful when you have a lantern around.
I’m sure there are other things that can make a spell or power useful in Dungeons and Dragons. What do you think? What makes an ability useful, and what makes it worth choosing over another spell or ability in your roleplaying game?