Some people like that, however. I just left a campaign that fell back from almost 3rd-level back to 1st in Pathfinder.
As always, different tastes. No company can make a product to satisfy everyone, and even with "dials" (eg slow down XP growth), that's not helpful if some members of the group don't like that.
I haven't found that to be a big problem. Mainly due to a problem player who is no longer part of my group, I learned how to use cops. And pass raven messages (they fly faster than horses run) and magical messages for when PCs can teleport. If they're committing big crimes, the Flaming Fist-style organization packed with high-level paladins are after them... while the city watch can do nothing but report on them, as they can't challenge the PCs.
And as you know, in real life, powerful people can break small laws all the time, and can even try to hide bigger crimes. At that point, the DM should let the players know if s/he's willing to run a spiraling-toward-evil campaign.
YES. As a DM I try to control that. But you're a player, and don't have that option.
It seems to me said powerful PC is not being challenged properly. It's not level-appropriate challenges the DM needs to use, but spellcasters who can target his wimpy Will save. How much experience does your DM have? Maybe you need to test-run a session.
I am not saying that it is wrong to want some of the things I have complained about. And there have been times I have had a really good time playing in campaigns that are more high powered.
I think a lot of my frustrations that are bubbling to the surface is that we have been playing the same style of game since around 2006. It doesn't matter who DMs.
It has gotten stale. I look back at our first 3.0 game we started the week the books went on sale. And of all the games I have played that 19 month campaign was pure gold. The players still talk about it today.
Comparing it to later games I can see how different that DM ran it. First of all we played weekly for 19 months and only got to ninth level. And nobody cared, I played a sorcerer and because it took so long between levels I got very creative with my spells. And I really got to understand how they work. Something I have noticed about leveling faster is that you are always on to big and better things.
The game was low magic. There were not a lot of clerics running around so we had to depend on our party cleric and the druid. Goodberries were important. We never had a wand of healing. We often depended on sleep to help restore hit points and we didn't feel the need to be 100% for every encounter. It was very different from the fill me up I am down way we play most games now.
There was also not a lot of mages so magic items were not common and since they were rare that +1 magical sword was awesome.
The DM also used a different system for ac. Basically the higher your ac from armor the more you got hit but the less damage you took. If you a +8 plate the first 8 points of damage was negated. The higher your dex the better your defense for avoiding hits. So you got hit less but when you did it hurt more.
The game had a gritty realistic feel to it and yet we still felt like powerful heroes.
Now I understand that you might nor want every campaign to be this way. Because after awhile that would get stale too.
DnD on the whole does not support that playstyle easily.
The DM for our Age of Worms is a newbie DM and yes that has caused part of the issue. She does throw spellcasters at him but with his awesome will save and improved evasion it rarely slows him down.
I need to research some spells for her and suggest ones that might slow him down.