Quote Originally Posted by SpicyBoi_Nezu View Post
According to my friend, I am not allowed to play tank because that is what I usually play (and quite well if I do say so myself).
[Emphasis added] Maybe it's just poor phrasing, but this sentence comes across as you being forced to change character archetypes for no reason other than someone else effectively deciding they don't like the look of your face. If the crux really is that your friend thinks a tank character won't fit into this op-level, then that's a valid concern, but the given party info doesn't necessarily support that idea.

In my opinion, a party can have two melee dps without many issues, because there are less enemies to hurt the rest of the party if half of them don't make it past round one.
This depends highly on the type of battlefields you find yourselves on. There is a very real problem with having two melee characters in a dungeon full of 5' wide corridors where only one melee character can engage: this setting is perfect for tanks, but means that there is literally only room for one melee person in front (and ranged attacks have to go through both soft cover and shoot into melee penalties). Even when advancing, there is often only one good spot to attack from: the closest adjacent square to the enemy, the one you can charge into, the one you won't eat AoOs for getting into. Two melee characters means one gets that spot, and the other doesn't.
A second ranged dps would allow for more than just one of the further away enemies to be dealt with, allowing the melee dps to focus on the closer enemies without worrying about using all of his movement in order to get all of them. If the party has a tank, that is quite good at defending the spell-caster and ranged dps, enemies pose less of a threat to the typically squishier members of the party
If this melee dps is truly optimized, they will explicitly want to move, in order to trigger whatever lol pounce they have, and (as they don't value the idea of "tank"), will probably not care about leaving the squishies undefended.
Do I NEED to play a healer?
No one "needs" to play a "healer," but standard 3.5 monsters are written under the assumption that the party can deal with the status effects and powerful AoE energy attacks they dish out, as well as a bunch of different dungeon navigation/survival spells. These defenses are guaranteed in the standard party by one particular class, the Cleric. With no cleric, every single monster that dishes out a crippling long-term status effect goes from Easy if Handled Properly (by running away and preparing the spell tomorrow), to just deadly, and any situation that happens to require a "utility" spell the sorcerer doesn't have, is now a likely insurmountable obstacle unless/until you buy an item to deal with it.

But if these optimizers are so good, they should have already brought their own Cleric. If you're the one who supposedly has to match them, it's their job to do the hard part and manage the casters.

And on the contrary, a party this focused on "dps" probably does need a tank, because they've got themselves a big 'ol blind spot. The thing is, in terms of just taking hits, a Cleric is as good as anyone, often better because they've got less reason to pretend shields are bad. You could easily make a tank, a true Tank, with the actual ability to take hits and soak other people's damage, with a Cleric- they have the Shield Other spell with literally splits someone else's damage with you, and you can take the Constant Guardian+Dutiful Guardian (Drow of the Underdark) and/or Combat Expertise+ Allied Defense (Shining South) feats with a Cleric as well as anyone else. The guardian feats let you transfer some AB to an ally's AC (without actually requiring an attack) and swap places with them during someone else's turn, while Allied Defense just lets you share your AC bonus from Expertise. A human could start with both guardian feats at 1st.
Do we NEED to have an "Optimized" party in order to survive?
Well the people to ask would be those that have played with this DM before. It would appear they're saying yes, but despite being afraid of this DM's game's power level, they've gone and built a party that they don't think can handle it. And expect you to do it for them. How 'bout no?
Does anyone ever REALLY NEED an "Optimized" party? Especially when you're starting at level 2.
Most char-op starts before 1st level and is planned at least through 6th, if not the whole 20. Without retraining you could permanently "cripple" your character by starting them off "wrong."

As for what to do with this game? I'd say tell your friend and the DM to stuff it, if they needed a healer that bad they should have built one themselves. If they've invited you to join this already 4 person party, they should be fine with you playing whatever you want, and if they're not then I'd suggest you probably don't want to play in this particular game.

Quote Originally Posted by False God View Post
Players should never assume they'll be able to get XYZ magic item once their characters hit the table. The assumption should always be that they'll get nothing more than their class features. If they get more stuff, great! But they shouldn't assume WBL, magic-item-shops or anything of that nature.
Random treasure and the ability to spend it if you find a town are in there firmly enough that going below that minimum should definitely qualify as a game change the DM should have known would require disclosure. But generally I agree- the game neither expects nor guarantees perfect items, just a certain few bonuses that you should get one way or another. However. . .

Quote Originally Posted by False God View Post
Please, I've played all the way through epic levels with zero magic items. 3.5 isn't some kind of computer game that mandates you to have specific item-level of gear or "purples" if you want to fight the big stuff. It's completely adjustable at every level of play.
Something I noticed when checking on 3.5 changes to many spells was that the whole "you must have X/Y/Z constant bonus," was way less of a thing in 3.0. Saving throws weren't easily boostable without Cloak of Resistance, but why boost saves when you could just negate the damage or effects entirely, as the Cleric can already do? The stat booster spells originally lasted hours/level (and could be boosted to higher numbers with metamagic), Greater Magic Weapon/Vestment were +1/3 levels rather than the +1/4 they are now, and those are the only things you truly need from items in 3.5. Assuming your party casters are party casting.

But they nerfed those spells, in what seems to be intentionally trying to make the party more item dependent. 3.x expects you to have a certain progression of ability and weapon/armor enhancement bonuses, and 3.5 made the spells that provide those short enough/weak enough that you need items to do the job. That's where the DM adjustment comes in of course, as the DM can just read the character sheets and figure out when it's time to break from CR X.