That's simply false. Leadership is derived from Presence and Presence can easily make you stronger. Leadership as a stat on items can increase your DPR more substantively than other offensive stats depending on configuration, making that position also situationally untrue even for Leadership directly.
You'll notice I said personally stronger. +1% Sexiness per Presence isn't going to compare to what any other stat can give you.
Tanking is a matter of taking the hits for your party. That is the modern-day definition of the gaming term, "tanking". Like I said, I don't like it (and I hated D&D 4th Edition for not only adopting it but openly making these roles a part of the game), but it is what it is.They won't because it's trivial to keep them alive if you're healing them. I already described that. I even mentioned the difficulty in finding opportunities to rez them because, if properly configured and maintained, they won't die. Again -- this is already a thing that you can do in CoC2, as I said.
What you're declaring is like saying "you can't possibly play a Thief in CoC2 because you'll be defeated before your damage defeats anyone else." Well, no -- Thief builds can beat opponents before the Thief runs out of hit points if built well. Everyone who's played a Thief will just be perplexed that you're denying that lived experience. Same thing here.
With respect, you just said it was, despite the fact that it's already doable.
As I already said in the previous post, tanking is a matter of taking the hits.
I think the issue here is that you're acting as if survivability is a non-issue so long as there's a single tank, and therefore, having gotten one character to tank, all emphasis goes to damage output, and then effectively saying that that's the One True Way to build a party. It is, however, not, and if there are multiple characters that can tank damage and the team's damage outuput is high enough to crush threats, the combat minigame's only real problem left is PC survivability. By the current max level of CoC2, that's the only issue such builds have left.
I know making an extremely defense-oriented team and very slowly whittling enemies down is a viable strategy. At least until you eventually meet something that outdamages your suboptimal defense (all characters are tough, but none are super tough) or, more likely, outheals your very low offense. There, boss design is a big part of what's viable and what isn't. It's indeed not optimal, which is why people prefer to specialize (if you go all in on damage reduction and threat on one character, you can go all in on healing/offense with the others), but as long as the game isn't too hard, attrition-based combat is possible.
It just doesn't involve a single tank.
I find Focus to be, if not useless, really ill-favored in later levels as I've usually built up enough defenses to render tease/temptation damage meaningless. Before the combat revamp, it could be countered with Bolstering at lower levels, and then it was way better to deal with that with Items, and, ime, the items just stopped getting used. Evasion is still more useful than Focus, as is Ward. The point of comparison with the Lamellar is the Resistances; again, if Leathers didn't have those out-of-nowhere offensive stats, they'd actually square up with the Lamellar.
Sexiness. I did point out that I generally wasn't using the stat, but that's the case for many builds.
The idea of a tank using lust to generate threat is... intriguing. The changes that made Resolve damage HP damage are too recent for me to confidently claim whether that would be viable, but I could see a character using the Leathers, Aphrodisiac Whip and Rosebloom Shield to tank. It'd be weird and I still think the Conquerer's would be much better for a tanking role (you wouldn't need any Sexiness to generate threat), but I think it would work.
Yes, while it would be easier to just nerf three good armor pieces than buff a whole bunch of bad ones, it's not just about balance, armor has to feel like it matters and that doesn't happen if the stats on it are too low. A chest piece that has 6 Armor and 3 Sexiness is much better than one that has 4 Armor and 2 Sexiness, but the reality is neither really matters much.I think they're a bit overtuned compared to some other attire. I think the solution there, though, is not nerfs, but to take a look at the more lackluster pieces of clothing and give them some numbers that can let them work with more builds, as well as very slight buffs. I'm actually in favor of the kind of thinking that went into the Leathers going into more armor.