Damage types and sources v.s. character roles, themes and build paths.

Hey Riot, I have a couple of questions about the types of damage in league and the stats both used to make them stronger and the stats to build against them.

We have 3 types of damage in league, Magic, Physical and True. In my opinion based on the state of the game and common tropes in gaming:

Magic damage is traditionally AoE, following in the standard concept of a walking nuke many mages are made to be. Many mages also use single target spells like magic missle, but some can rely exclusively on one or the other.

1. Orianna relies on aoe spells, which is understandable based on her theme around using a ball as a weapon. This is appropriate in my eyes as very precise weapons such as Viktor lasers goes against the Orianna style in my own opinion.
2. Lissandra uses a few aoe spells and a single, single target spell that influences things in an aoe too. Although I love how she plays, this is potentially against her theme depending on how you interpret it. To me, ice is something that is very precise like a spear. To others, maybe a field of ice that inhibits movement.
3. Swain is thematically a heavy aoe user based on his root and ultimate, also his drain-tank method of play. In spite of this he has 2 single target moves, which doesn't make sense to me. The only way it works in my eyes is because of his bird motif, picking out worms from the ground or snatching up prey. The lightning bolts don't quite add up though... Perhaps his moves would be better visualized as a talon coming from the sky and holding them in place, or a spectral beak impaling them. Since going with tradition all the time is boring and uninnovative, how do you decide how to interpret a character's role and playing pattern based simply on being a mage of some description? How would a melee figher form of Lissandra differ from her in general move asthetics and of influence?

Physical Damage is very loosely defined, and can even be confused with magic or possibly be magically aided in some cases, leaving it largely up to interpretation.

1. Irelia is a unique case because of the weaponry she uses paired with her telekinetic powers. I think people give her too much flak about theme, and don't look at the picture from the intended angle. She makes sense to me as a fighter based around a "bladestorm" or flurry of attacks with moving levitating weapons. Perhaps she would however be better represented by a more quick and close range ultimate. Also, the idea of hiten doesn't quite carry over in her other moves, her passive could probably carry the theme and have kit interaction.
2. Gnar is a champion based completely off of wildness and physical destruction. In his megavolved state he makes perfect sense and I don't see any way in which a godzilla figure could be construed as accurate or precise.
3. Vayne is exactly what you would expect, not too much bleed in terms of character roles or influence.
4. Caitlyn is a bit different, as her trap move is based on a hunter's bear trap. Personally this makes no sense unless she is a very paranoid and barbaric sheriff, a more technologically advanced trap would make more sense, maybe in the shape of jayce's gates? A tripwire maybe? Since physical damage dealers are so loosely defined exept in an adc's case, how do you decide where to make allowances for the kit deviating a bit and giving some tools such as wave clear or defense? Physical characters already can do respectable/extreme damage for free, where do you make the tradeoffs in their kits usually to allow this? Lastly, where do you draw the line before saying "this adc is too much like a mage" or "we can't do that, only mages can do that!"?

True damage is a unique form of damage to me, because I can't relate true damage as an actual archetype of characters. Personally I think this is the problem here.

1. Characters such as Vayne, Yi and Irelia get true damage as a tool to help kill tanks, often making it feel tacked on simply to preemptively help them against certain roles.
2. Darius gets a true damage ultimate and I'm not completely sure why. The only reason seems to come from his theme of being an executioner. If you are below the threshold, nothing will save you. Except Lulu. As a damage type, it is sorely underrepresented. Is it too volatile to base a kit around? Could it be used instead of flat damage? Is there a taboo against using it as an aoe move? Mages also never get true damage as a tool, is this because of the play patterns involving them? I'm sure many people would love to see a true damage champion, but would it be worth even doing? Similar to the true damage issue, shields are a huge grey area too. Is there an unspoken rule that shields can never be removed except through damage? Could a champion ever get a tool to shield-shred? Why even limit it to a single move or champion?

Now the last thing I promise :D In light of everything I just talked about, think about the different damage types and their counter buys. Fed mage? Buy magic resist. Jinx over there? Buy armor. Yi? Health. As every offensive stat has multiple multipliers except true damage, why shouldn't defensive stats too? Are shields complex enough to leave as is? Look at the complexity of each damage type. AD

• AD
• Crit chance and damage
• attack speed
• armor pen
• CDR AP
• AP
• CDR TRUE
• ???

Is it worth considering a new damage mitigation stat or set of items, based completely on the are of influence of said damage? A single target defense stat? How about aoe defense stat? Is Hp regen good enough against dots? Should there even be options against these things? Is it now too complex, because AD is already there.