AD and AP damage: what really matters in a composition
People often evaluate a composition by counting its physical and magic damage, as if a balance had to be respected. That is not the main criterion. The first point is having enough DPS to threaten objectives; damage type only comes in afterwards, and not always.
The real criterion: threatening objectives
What matters is having enough DPS to be able to threaten objectives.
Without that threat, the opponent is free to play their own game. Nobody forces them to defend, they are not put under the pressure of a timer, and they therefore have the time to optimise their own actions as well as possible.
It is a silent loss: a composition with no threat on objectives loses no fight, it simply gives time to the other side.
The mechanism deserves to be spelled out, because it is indirect. A team that can bring down a dragon in a few seconds forces the other one to move, to group, to give up what it was doing. A team that takes twice as long forces nothing: the opponent can finish their wave, take a camp, reposition, then come and contest at the moment that suits them.
The difference shows up in no confrontation. It shows up in the number of actions the opponent was able to string together freely while you were not threatening them.
Note the word: DPS, not damage. What puts pressure on is the speed at which a team can bring down an objective — not the amount of damage it will end up dealing.
The problem with single-type damage
A composition that only deals one type of damage poses one precise problem, and only one: how easily the opponent can build resistance against it.
It is not that this damage is less effective. It is that the answer is cheap: a single axis of resistance is enough to reduce the team's entire output.
That said, resistance is only one aspect of the game. Which brings us to the two cases where the problem disappears.
Two cases where damage type does not weigh in
| Situation | Why single-type stops being a flaw |
|---|---|
| You have more DPS anyway, or you can go and reach the enemy damage carriers | The frontline's resistance, even reinforced by only facing one type of damage, is not that impactful |
| The opponent has neither tank nor bruiser | The source of the damage does not matter: nobody would buy resistance anyway |
The second case is worth pausing on. The AD/AP balance of a composition is not judged on itself, but on what the opponent can do with it. Against a team that will never buy resistance, the question does not arise.
How to read this criterion on a draft
The order of the questions matters, and it is not the one usually practised.
- Do I have enough DPS to threaten objectives? If not, the rest is secondary.
- Is my damage concentrated on a single type? If not, the question stops there.
- Does the opponent have what it takes to exploit it? If they have neither tank nor bruiser, single-type costs nothing.
- Can I get around their resistance? By having more DPS, or by reaching their damage carriers directly.
An AD/AP imbalance is therefore never a flaw in itself. It is a conditional flaw, one that only materialises if the opponent has the means to exploit it.
The common mistake
The mistake consists in correcting an imbalance for its own sake, sacrificing DPS in order to diversify damage types.
You then trade a conditional flaw — one that may well cost nothing — for a certain weakness on the first criterion: the ability to threaten objectives, and therefore to impose a rhythm on the opponent.
FAQ
Do you always have to balance AD and AP damage?
No. Single-type is only a problem if the opponent can build resistance cheaply. With neither tank nor bruiser across from you, the question does not arise.
What happens if my composition only deals physical damage?
The opponent can concentrate their purchases on a single axis of resistance. But that remains without effect if you have more DPS anyway, or if you can reach their damage carriers directly.
Why talk about DPS rather than damage?
Because it is speed that puts the opponent under pressure. Bringing an objective down quickly imposes a timer on them; dealing a lot of damage slowly forces them into nothing.
Is it better to diversify your damage or to have more of it?
To have more of it, in most cases. Sacrificing DPS to balance the types amounts to trading a conditional flaw for a certain weakness.
Going further
- The tempo of a composition — timer pressure, and the rhythm of a game.
- Win conditions — how a composition wins the game.
- Evaluate a composition — the four-step evaluation method.
- CC in draft — the trade-off between CC and damage.
- Champion profiles in draft — what each champion brings to a composition.
- All our draft guides — the pillar page of the cluster.
Check the threat first. Replay a draft and ask yourself whether each team can really bring an objective down fast — on uDrafter, free and no account needed.