It is strange that you think that my abilities draw too many cards compared to yours. Let's compare:

All my 1 XP skills make the Spellcaster draw 1 single Spell at the beginning of each encounter - that's it. Your 1 XP skills allow the Novice Wizard to draw a Runeshard after every Runeshard played (so, basically, one every turn), one for every search (usually 4 per encounter), and 1 at the beginning of each encounter but 2 when Graft is cast, which also allows you to go recursive so that you Runeshard deck is never depleted. 1/1/1 for me, many/0 to 4/1(+recursion) for you.

At 2 XP, my Necromancy draws a card for every master monster killed; your Inflame Shards for every monster - huge difference. Then you have a 3 XP card that draws a card for every attack. Heroes almost always attack at least once every turn, so that's another draw every turn.

All my Skills except the 2 XP Skills draw just one card per encounter, and the 2 XP draws are for things that are either limited to 4 (4 search or 4 knock-outs) or hard to do (there are not so many master monsters per encounter and they are harder to kill). With a few XP, your Novice Wizard draws 2 or 3 cards every turn by doing stuff - attacking and killing - that heroes do anyway. I fail to see how this drawing feast is tuning down my card drawing abilities.

I created the Spellcaster class out of nostalgia about 2 things: the Heroic Feats from Tomb of Ice (Descent 1st Edition) and the D&D wizards (or priests) who started quests with a handful of spells that they slowly used up. That's why the Spellcaster's deck isn't recursive: there are a few drawing possibilities, but once all Spells in the deck have been cast, the spellcasting is over. Just like a D&D wizard of old. But every time your experience grows, you start with more Spells (or you can draw more) and more powerful ones. Just like in D&D.

You Novice Wizard is quite a different concept. Since your card draw is constant and recursive, it is as if you had skills to use every turn; you (and the OL) just don't know which ones they'll be. It is a perfectly playable class and it could absolutely be a fun one, but it is not what I had in mind when I created the Spellcaster, so I am no more entitled to give you advice on it than any other participant in this forum.

However, what I probably should have done to make the D&D nostalgic trip a little more consistent is to create a mage class without any healing Spells, and create a spellcasting healer class (Priest?) with mostly healing (or protection) Spells. In our group, the 2 missing classes would have been filled up, and we would have been able to play Descent D&D style with 2 spellcasters, which would have been really cool.

On top of the coolness, wouldn't that been an amazing sales argument for an expansion? "Dungeons & Descent expansion - play Descent casting spells like in the roleplaying games of your youth!"

Go FFG !