Talk:Magic

Rewrite
Right, given this page a HUGE rewrite. And it's waaay too big, and not even complete yet.

Still needed are stats on
 * Member Staves
 * Magical Armour
 * The training magic section needs fleshing out.


 * i didnt know where to say this but in the trivia section i changed "the lower skill was removed to "the latter skill was removed and the former skill was changed to Magic" because that is how most people would say it and its written in most books Aeiou Y5 22:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

>>out of curiosity, should he practice of wearing armour while useing magic to damper HP experience and signifigantly increase the magic level vs. combat level desparity be mentioned? i only recently found out why people did that, and i thought it was an interesting tid bit worthy of mention, instead of just a trade secret for people making "pure" mages. sorry, not a member, so excuse the unofficial-ness of my post

Links to 'Sub'-magic Articles
Maybe telportation is the only sub-magic article, but we will need to put a link to it anyway. -- Carralpha
 * Sign your posts with ~, not by typing it. Also, Enchantment. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  13:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's too big
It's too big, seriously, I'd like to hear thoughts on what needs to get cut/hived off into a separate article.

The full spell list section seems an ideal candidate, and possibly, when it's complete, the magical equipment section too.

Thoughts please --Eucarya 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the magical equipment should be in here, but there should be links to the Armour and Weapons page. Unless someone can think of anything important to say about every piece of magic armour or every magic weapon, the information should just be in the armour or weapon's individual entry. I think the spells should be put on the "Spells" page, and there just be a link in the magic article. -- Couchpotato99 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that each spell ought to have its own article. Put the items in their armor or weapon category, and whatever is left can define the Magic article itself. Shadowdancer 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If we did that, we'd have a ton of stubby articles. Why not make articles like "Strike spells", "Teleport spells", and "Other spells"? I could set up an [ugly] template for rune costs per spell if you want. Oddlyoko 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"How to successfully fight as a mage"
This section is biased and not relevent to the skill itself. Opinions? Shadowdancer 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strategy sections aren't in and of themselves biased.--Atlantima 15:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

High lvl achemy

 * The guy in the picture looks like me * _ * --Holomanga 13:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The pic was from wikipedia so it probably is. --Eucarya 21:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Naw, it's Fetttson. [[image:Green party hat.PNG|14px]] Hyenaste talk 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

New image of the normal spell book
Since it changed with the addition of the Lumbridge Home Port, can someone get a new screen cap of the spell book? I would like to make it known that this is Marcus Gord, I see no point to logging in to post one comment. 82.47.35.13 18:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
Were there really two different magic skills? I've only been playing since '03, so I really don't know too much game history past that. Also, I think the full spell list should be removed; its sort of redundant, since all of the spells are already mentioned in the article. Also, is mentioning that magic is the most important skill in the game biased?
 * Yes and yes. Dunno about removing the spell list. Perhaps moving it to Complete list of spells might be a good idea. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  20:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * remove it no, move it sure. The full list contains ALL spells from ALL spellbooks including lunar and ancients as well as normal. --[[Image:Smithingimg.PNG]] Eucarya Talk 00:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I know it's been a featured article, but it's just such a messy page. I think we can do without some of the pictures or at least put them all on the right side of the screen. And are all the tables necessary? Could we move some of them off of this page and link to them somehow? --Wowbagger421 00:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to comment that it has been over a month since I posted that and no one has commented. --Wowbagger421 02:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think splitting off the "spell book" (i.e. the list of spells) into a seperate article would help a lot. This would leave the main magic page to then refer to the skill itself. If split off, what should the new page be called? "Standard spells", "Modern spells", "Modern magic"? For comparison, the articles for the other two books are called Ancient Magicks and Lunar Spells. Any thoughts, comments, etc.? 08:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've completely refactored the structure of the page. Give me your thoughts.  As for branching the standard spell book off of the magic page, the problem I have with that is for most players looking at a magic guide, the fact that the standard spellbook is really only one of three options is kind of irrelevant--as most of those readers are new players looking for hints in training and thus need to know what's relevant to them


 * The other spell books are member only, so it makes more sense to leave them as a separate page. F2P only has modern magic, so including it is more natural. Yet, the modern spell set description is way to extensive, so perhaps create a comprehensive modern magic spell book page and reduce its description on the magic page to a kind of summary (especially regarding the member spells in there). --Miw 07:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the refactoring is a good improvement. Moving the rune details out has helped too. I can see the logic in keeping the modern spells in the magic page itself. I revert my previous comment. 08:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pluses or Commas?
in the “Runes Required” section, half of the runes are separated by pluses, the other half by commas. Which one should we use? Tesfan 16:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A notice about the spell books
Has anyone noticed that the spell books may be related to each god? For example, the lunar spellbook might be a spellbook of saradomin, the standard spellbook might be a spellbook of guthix, and the desert treasure spellbook might be a spellbook of zamorack. Reason: Lunar has all non-combat and teleportation spells, standard has non-combat, combat, and teleportation spells, while desert treasure has all combat and teleport spells.

Very observent of you. I defenetly aggre that this might be the case. Tesfan 12:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree, but would take it a different way. Lunar == Guthix, normal == Saradomin, ancients = Zamorak.  The reason behind this is that if you examine the normal spell book, it is full of attack spells and so is ancients.  Saradomin and Zamorak have always been fighting, good vs evil.  Conversely, Guthix has always been a neutral party.  Guthix is balance--the lunar spells are all about neutrality and balance.  Think about it, cure poison, vengeance, while combat based, is all about being fair (you hit me, I hit you).

combat spells
not once in this entire article has anyone said how much exp u get per hitpoint u take is it base xp+ hp taken x4? (4 xp per hp taken?)