The first and third points aren’t really big deals; actually, the third point would be a disadvantage of save-or-dies. Would be, if the numbers were more reasonable.
By the numbers: you can probably make someone fail a saving throw
Ultimately, caster classes have every reason to pump their save DCs as much as they can. The ability score that sets the DC is going to be their most important – after all, it also sets their bonus spells per day, and spells of a given level have a minimum required score in that ability. There is no other consideration in their lives that compares to what this ability score can do for them. This makes them “SAD” – single ability dependent. They can and should put everything they can into that ability score (short of missing out on spellcasting).
Meanwhile, even if you have all-good saves, the base save progression for good saves is the same as that of spell’s DCs: good saves get +1 every 2 levels, new spell levels, which have a DC 1 higher than the previous, are accessed every 2 levels. Good saves start at +2 (and a half, technically) over DCs, but as levels accrue that becomes a smaller and smaller portion of the overall bonus. So that’s only keeping you up with the basics.
But even with all-good saves, you need three different ability scores. It’s simply impossible to pump three ability scores as much as someone else can pump one. Items that give resistance bonuses to saving throws can make up the difference, but only if you’re ignoring the other three ability scores. And classes with all-good saves are rare, and tend to suck.
How do poor saves fare? They grow at +1 every 3 levels: over time, you are automatically falling behind. Most classes have a thematic link between saves and ability score focuses – if you have a poor save, there’s a pretty good chance you don’t use that ability score for much, either. Even if you do, you’re playing an impossible game of catch-up.
And the spellcasters can capitalize on this. A cleric’s Will save, there you probably have less than a 50:50 shot. But you still have a non-negligible chance. Someone else’s good save, that they don’t focus on the ability score for? You’ll probably land that. A bad save? Almost certainly.
Which wouldn’t be a problem – would actually be a good thing – but...
It’s good that spellcasters can do things; it’d be boring if saves were made often and spellcasters had to spend a lot of turns watching enemies ignore their effects. I think changing these numbers so spells fail often is a bad idea, because it makes playing a spellcaster very un-fun. It’d be better-balanced, but that’t not the only concern.
The real problem is what happens when someone fails a saving throw. If the spellcaster is being smart about spell selection, that person is, at best, out of the fight. Even at low levels, sleep or color spray literally remove people, grease takes out many creatures, glitterdust, even with the Pathfinder nerf, is still brutal. As levels get higher, the effects get worse, affect more people, or don’t allow a save at all. It turns “casting a spell” into “solve the encounter.” And there is no way to fix that aside from going through each and every spell and consider each for a total overhaul. That’s the only way to fix things, and it’s something a lot of people thought Paizo was going to do, when they were hyping up Pathfinder as a fixed 3.5. But outside of a few notorious spells (glitterdust, polymorph), they didn’t really touch the spells, and in the time since have strongly reinforced caster supremacy.
Ultimately, if this ability of spellcasters bothers you, I think you are playing the wrong system. Pathfinder was designed around the idea that spellcasters should be this powerful. Paizo has consistently pushed the envelope in terms of new and greater powers for spellcasters, while limiting and frustrating mundane characters at every turn, even to the point of errata-ing out the few tricks that start to give them a leg up. At this point, the massive gap between the two is a very-much-intentional feature of the system.
Yes it is more or less appropriate challenge, though it should be something like "boss"/"mini-boss".
As TheDarkWanderer pointed out Challenge Rating and average party level shouldn't necessarily match, so your party should probably be ok with a creature like that. After all CR system doesn't describe challenge really accurately, as it depends on multitude of different things like pre-scouting and builds.
You may still want to adjust this dragon for it to suit your needs more, but here is estimated 3.5e statblock based on information you've given:
Size/Type: Gargantuan Dragon (Fire)
Hit Dice: 22d12 +132 (275 hp) x3
Initiative: +0
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares), fly 100 (clumsy)
Armor Class: 40 (-4 size, +44 natural [decreses slightly in later forms]), touch 6, flat-footed 40
Base Attack/Grapple: +22/+45
Attack: Byte +29 melee (4d6+11)
Full Attack: Byte +29 melee (4d6+11) and 2 claws +27 melee (2d8+5) and 2 wings +27 melee (2d6+5) and tail slap +27 melee (2d8+16)
Space/Reach: 20 ft./15 ft. (20 ft. with byte and tail)
Special Attacks: Crush, Tail Sweep, Lava Bomb, Earthquake Stomp, Shed Embers, Lava Vomit
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., Low-light vision, Dragon traits, Vulnerability to Cold, Immunity to Fire, DR 10/magic, SR 26, Paragon Fortitude, Paragon Fury, Blazing Form, Hardening Skin
Saves: Fort +19, Ref +13, Will +16
Abilities: Str 32, Dex 10, Con 22, Int 15, Wis 16, Cha 18
Skills: whatever
Feats: Multiattack, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Awesome Blow (and 4 more feats of DM’s choice)
Challenge Rating: ~18
Crush (Ex) (4d6+16) DC 32;
Tail Sweep (Ex) (2d6+16) DC 32
Read
this about dragon specials. Note, while it is generally suggested to base these attacks on Con, I personally suggest to base them (as well as Earthquake Stomp) on Str instead, as they are basically area melee attacks.
Earthquake Stomp (Ex) (~2d6+16) DC 32
It is hard to convert this into 3.5 safely, since 3.5 is much less cartoon-styled, so just stomp would hardly be capable of causing Sonic (or what alternative is appropriate for Thunder?) damage. You may want to completely rework it.
Blazing Form (Ex) (~ 3d6)
Lava Bomb (Su) (~ 7d10) DC 27; Shed Embers (Su) (~ 9d10) DC 27; Lava Vomit (Su) (~ 12d10) DC 27
These are based on appropriate Breath Weapons of similar dragons.
I’ve added Fire subtype here, making Vulnerability to Cold and Immunity to Fire constant. You may of course reverse this, but it is how 3.5 generally deals with such cases, I believe.
Damage and Reach are now set as appropriate for gargantuan dragons. I added longer reach for the tail as it seems to have longest reach in the source. Gargantuan dragons usually also have Wing attacks (as well as Crush and Tail Sweep specs). Feel free to remove them if needed.
Bear in mind that this creature will became MUCH stronger when it will lose two of it’s pools. So it isn’t CR 18 from the start, but maybe somewhere close at it’s third pool.
Best Answer
No. The sphere will remain on the same square until the wizard spends a move action to move it again, or the wizard moves out of the spell's range. I quote your quote:
That means that while the wizard is inside the spell's range, AND the spell's duration has not expired, the sphere is active regardless if the wizard moves it or not. So if it occupies the same square with a target, and the target does not move out of the square, she will be burned by the sphere, on the wizards next round WITHOUT any action needed by the wizard.
-EDIT-
Flaming sphere's diameter is 5 ft, both in Pathfinder and 3.5.
So it is logical that a square occupied by the sphere is on fire for the duration of the spell, and anybody that is on the same square or passes through it is affected by the spell (Entitled to a reflex save or damage) regardless if the caster moves the sphere on her round. Credit to @Can Canbeck and @medivh for the comments clarifications :)