FANDOM


This talk page is for discussing the Magic page.

Armor with lowest magic bonus

This should be included, as it is relevant to training magic and a very welcome statistic.

This could be usfull in fist of guthix and general magic training.

It would require looking at every piece of equipment.


I did that! needs formatting though...

Here is the 'best' equipment:

  • Helm: Granite helm -9 (Vanguard helm -17)
  • Body: Rune platebody/Rock-shell body -30
  • Legs: Granite legs -31
  • Boots: Bandos boots -5 (Vanguard boots -7)
  • Shield: Granite shield/Obsidian shield -12
  • Gloves: (Vanguard gloves -10)

Total(without vanguard): -87

Total(with vanguard): -107

Which allows almost any staff and you will still splash (100% splash with -65 magic attack bonus)

(Vanguard has very high requirements)

I have not looked up any jewelry or capes, nor checked every available pair of boots/gloves. But it's more then enough.

Math + Training guide = Win

There's a little code to declare the current GE price of a spell, and with a little work that could expand into some very nice comparisons, a user's calculator maybe, we could *at least* have a gp/xp list to compare the cost efficiency of all spells. The bonus XP of damage spells can be reasonably estimated, say avg damage is 50% of max and cut again for % accuracy.

Redivide by a multiplier of XP again and you can put a weight on the speed of the training as well, not just GP efficiency. GP/XP^2 would be a 50-50 weight on gold and time. It seems like a neat idea, but if no one wants to bother working it out I'd understand. --Falos425 10:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that it would require multiple different pages. You have to realize, if you are going to do this, you would have to do each spellbook, then each staff/staff style with each book.
For example, you would have to have a magic/no staff normal, then an air staff normal, then a water staff normal, etc., etc., etc. That would take a large to write out. Just for nonmember combat spells, there are 5 staves/staff styles and 12 spells, meaning 60 different entries for the spells. If that is not enough, if you add in every other non-member spell, that means that there are going to be 145 entries just for non member.
Then go and add the other 2 spell books and things like mud battlestaves and mud runes. You now have a hell of a lot of entries, just for a couple of simple stats. It would be a massive undertaking because you would have to choose the staff from 8 different groups (none, air, water, earth, fire, water/earth, water/fire, fire/earth), and then from the 6 possible combination runes, you then have over 300 different entries.
I for one would not like to write it all, but it could be useful.
Eternalsage0 21:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is an example table using just the first 4 nonmember combat spells:
SpellMinimum XPTotal Cost per CastGP per EXP
Wind Strike5.55910.727272727273
Water Strike7.57910.533333333333
Earth Strike9.59510
Fire Strike11.535330.695652173913
If you look at the code, it is really just a jumble of mess. If we could streamline it, it would be much easier. I know that in some magic spells there is a value in the middle of them that says their cost along with if it is cast using a staff of some sort, so maybe we could channel that into this and save us a lot of typing here.Eternalsage0 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've gotten a good bit of the nonmembers done. It's on this page, down at the bottom. Unfortunately, there seems to be a problem I myself cannot resolve. Anything to help is greatly appreciated. Eternalsage0 01:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, this is going to need many, many, many pages to do. The server can handle only so many template calls, and since an entire table takes 80+ GE Price template calls, and that calls other templates, it's just to much for the server to handle. At best, we can maybe get 2 of the tables I have on my page done. Eternalsage0 20:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)


Yes I think it would make things easier if we make a Sub Article for Teleports. It would just make more sense and make things easier for readers.

Eyeball4000 11:19, 5 March 2009 (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)

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. --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.? Amaurice talk 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 Endasil (Talk) @ Endasil 15:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
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. Amaurice talk 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.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkthis (talk).

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). Endasil (Talk) @ 14:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No this isnt right, ancient is the spellbook of zaros, they are 2 very different gods.117.102.60.248 09:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, but it doesn't work in practice. Flames of Zamorak, Iban's Blast, Claws of Guthix and Saradomin Strike are all in the main spellbook. In addition, as has been said above, the Ancient Spellbook and Ancient Magic is a Zaros creation (hence the Ancient Staff autocasting Ancient spells). Finally the Moonclan don't seem to worship Saradomin... King Runite1 11:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

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?)

Cleanup Tag Removal

The magic page seen a lot of cleanups and general improvements. Most of the member parts of the skill are briefly mentioned with a link to a fuller description. As a result, the length of the page is now reasonable. Other skills (e.g. Hunter) have a much longer page. The only remaining possible optimisation is a move of the magic traing section to a separate page. This would only make sense if "skill training" becomes a completely new category with a training page for every skill. This probably is an admin issue to decide upon. Even without this optimisation, the magic page length is modest so i'd like to see the cleanup tag removed. --Miw 10:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this page has had a lot of attention this week. I'm fine with removing the tag. The only other thing I am going to do is remove all those "Img" headers and just have the "Spell" or "Item" header span both columns. Endasil (Talk) @ 14:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Could possibly merge the image and name columns, simplifying the resulting table layout slightly, tried it on one of the smaller ones and it seemed to work, but it's a big job (replacing the || between image and spell on each line with a space, and removing the colspan in the header). Ace of Risk 17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, a well formed regular expression would make quick work of it, but that's not really relevant to the cleanup tag itself is it? I'm going to remove the tag now, seeing as we only use it in pretty extreme circumstances. If anyone finds anything really messy about the article, feel free to put it back on and start a discussion on it. Endasil (Talk) @ 18:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Alteration

"This "magic" in runescape is mostly viewed as an overpowered skill and the other combat skills ( melee, and range) are underpowered. This however is only more the reason to raise up your magic level. It is the more favorable one in runescape although melee is considered easier and cheaper." True or false? Seems highly opinionated to me, and even if not, contains bad grammar. I don't want to touch it without a second opinion, but I suggest that this section is removed, or at least reworded to sound more in keeping with the rest of the article. (Examples of bad grammar are: Non-capitalisation of RuneScape, bracket being away from "melee"). Yleron - (Talk)(Contribs) 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah that was completely biased. I reverted the edit. The grammar edits you can feel free to change without discussion. Endasil (Talk) @ 02:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually true, in my experience.... not biased. Poorly written, though.--Agamemnus 04:24, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

F2P training

There is no training for f2p players!Why do you always forget us?

What do you mean there's no magic training for us? We can train magic as much as members.
  1. REDIRECT User:C Teng/sig 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No I mean that in this article,there is only a training section for members...

I see a lot of f2p training in the article. The lesser in the wizards tower cage, and the f2p spells?
  1. REDIRECT User:C Teng/sig 23:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean a training to get to level 99 in steps.

Oh. Well, lets add some, then.
  1. REDIRECT User:C Teng/sig 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You're right, there's a Free-to-play Melee training guide, and a Free-to-play Ranged training guide, but no Free-to-play Magic training guide.
  1. REDIRECT User:C Teng/sig 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup for training section

Overall, this article appears very well layed-out and written. However, the training section appears a little untidy and harder to read than the other parts of the article. It would be good if this information could be rewritten and set out into a table, like the one on the Ranged article. ~ Faiylen 03:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that this has been sorted out. Looks much more organised now. ~ Faiylen 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

Is there any proof that water spells will hit more against fire creatures or that higher level spells are less accurate? --Wowbagger421 18:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions

The Magic Armour & Weapons section claims that the maximum magic attack bonus is 145. The Trivia section says it's 135. Which is it? Sir Revan125 12:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

missing again?

Checking if the runecrafter hat gives the same bonuses, I realized that the anti-dragon fire shield wasnt in the best magic armour for F2P, I thought it didnt give negative offensive magic bonuses. Or someone forgot to add it?? Jd0064 22:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"I thought it didnt give negative offensive magic bonuses." Exactly. it doesn't affect the magic attack bonus, so there's no point inluding it. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, there might be a reason to, since it is the best non-members shield for a mage. Eternalsage0 20:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

F2P Armour

I was looking at the given build, and I was wondering if we should change the build around, or atleast make the runecrafter's hat more of a prominent idea. The only advantages for a nonmember that the RC hat are that it can be gotten fairly early and it, when combined with the rest of the build, gives a negligible extra cast every once and a while, while giving a negligible +1 defense to summoning that a nonmember will hopefully never have to face. The RC hat on the other hand never wears out and has better defense bonuses. I for one wouldn't mind changing the given build to using the RC hat over the hood for that the build assumes that the player can get 50 runecrafting to be able to get the gloves, and the hat is gotten at the same place.

Also, why aren't equiptment that still would be used but not added to the magic bonus total shown? I mean, a pair of leather boots and a cape can add on a couple of defense points while not detracting from the magic stat.

Eternalsage0 21:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I just undereducated, or is there such a thing as a "Tank Mage?" I thought that a Tank Mage was someone who wore Melee armor (that had a very bad magic attack/defense bonus) to attack a monster or person with a weak defense to magic (such as a layer wearing full Rune w. a dragon longsword.) Is what I hear true, or did I hear this from an unreliable source? Can someone leave a message on this or on my talk page please? If there is such a thing, I want to make an article about it since there isn't one that I could find on the wiki. 22:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Expanded

Hey all you Runescape Players out there lets talk Magic. Ok first things first, we all know that choosing a type of Magic is easy, but the hard part is we have to level up in order to use the one's we see as a powerful attack. Well you see it's not all bad; You could think of it as a good thing if you think real hard (well it's not hard at all actually)Magic Consists of 3 Seperate categories.

First one is Basic, then Lunar, and Finally Ancient. As a new player you will see the only spell you know: Air strike. this isn't a "Oh man im never gona get to the high magic spells" this is a good chance for you to get around Runescape and see all the amazing areas it has to afford. You will fight strongers enemies as your move along and hey you may even meet some of the many bosses runescape has, like the highest level creature in the game. The CORPERAL BEAST!!!! this is the highest leveled creature in the game and the hardest to some people, no one has ever taken the creature by theirself and lived.

But anyway you see as you move along you will understand more and more and more. Now the difficult part is the Money needed to buy your runes which you use to cast a spell. Now this may seem hard but focus one of your money making skills to the limit and making money won't be so hard if you apply yourself and get it. (EX.: woodcutting, hunter, fishing, slayer(recommended), herbolore, runecrafting,farming,etc...

Now the other spells I mentioned can be obtained by doing a quest and you choose which other book you want to do. Ancient magic is the most popular out there. notice attack called Ice Barrage this spell is a really high demanded spell. alot of players use this to stop there eneimes for moving and double damgaging them in the process. other players find this very agitating because they focus on range and melee.

This is all part of the magic cycle and we treat sometimes with senseless care. some use it to gang up on others while some use it to get what they want. Me I hate Both And cannot stand to see someone get scammed and ganged up on.

We see this as a good oppertunity to get a start in our gaming life but if we saw that this was a good chance to learn something we could beneifit from it.

now lunar is mostly consisted of teleportation spells and statius peeking. And not im all the way sure on this but if you want more info, my acc. name is Dracus132 on runescape I am a former player so ask me anything and i will answer.--Dracus132 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Dylan

No offence, but this would have been better suited on the article itself (when wikifyed, removing the PoV and first person); please remember that talk page are for dicussing improvements to the article, not to discuss what the article is about. Other than that, this is actually quite informative, good job. (I also removed the spaces before each paragraph; that causes it to form a box around the text (to indent a paragraph use a colon), so I fixed it.) Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 19:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC) (edit: missing word Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Whoa!

I just tried to attack a Guard with fire strike, and it said, "Nothing Interesting happens." WHAT THE HECK!? Anyone want to help me out here!? Kirby111 Talk to the master of DINNER. 15:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Whew, nevermind, System update just fixed it... Kirby111 Talk to the master of DINNER. 15:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

hey, kirby. the game has some glitches, so dont freak out if this happens gain. kk? ty! Halogirl15 20:43, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Mage Attack Bonus

Isn't the best mage attack bonus a single class 5 staff (from stealing creation)? It has over +200 by itself. Mage24365 03:14, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Yes but you can't remove it from the minigame. This is the case with a lot of the weapons from SC (they have amazing stats). Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 17:18, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Max hit in the standard spellbook

I don't think that Fire Surge actually has the maximum hit. I believe that title goes to Claws of Guthix. If you add in Charge (max hit up to 30), a Void Knight mace (bringing the max hit up to 33), and an extreme magic or overload potion (making a total max hit of 39!), it is actually higher than fire surge with all of these (except for charge, of course). I'll go ahead and change that. Wrathanet talk edits Guthix mjolnir 22:26, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add this?

I just started training mage from 95-99 and (currently 20% complete) and found a good way to train. Fire Surge may be expensive but the massive base xp is quite attractive. Base xp = 90. that is the same base xp as stun! all damage is gravy! An hour are steel dragons can get around 320k xp (with SC armor) and is 1000x less annoying than barraging. The drops help cover the cost and after using around 5k cast i have made 7M.

-More xp than stunning -Less annoying than barraging -Cheaper than barraging -Somewhat fun

Can be used at SW for like 500k xp an hour with SW armor...

I'm just saying i never really thought of trying until i was bored...its a great training method!

I'm asking someone else to add because I have no idea how :S

images won't load

I moved some images around and now they won't load. No idea why this is happening. Please don't just "undo" but instead fix the images if you can.--Agamemnus 07:20, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any images not loading (pun not intended) HPTUBucket detailrwojy 07:27, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
The only image that wasn't loading that I just noticed is one that had ].] instead of ]]. or .]] HPTUBucket detailrwojy 07:30, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

History section

I need some ideas on how to categorize the different historical events that happened to the magic skill. Should I just give a temporal line or should I group 'em into sections per year or what?      Hiscore 106  Kyogron Talk Contribs     17:52, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

F2P Max hit

The figure of 198 was obtained theoretically and mathematically:



fire blast: 160

Mind bomb +9%

Blast necklace: +10%

Gravite staff: +5%

Total +24%



160 + 24%= 198.4, round to 198

This figure should be manually verified


De jour 00:38, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

The new details section.

I really like it. I think we should implement it on the other skills. --Fishing Raian the Fallen Talk Runecrafting 12:32, June 9, 2010 (UTC)--

Highest magic bonus with non-degrading armour.

I tried to find out but i keep getting lost and confused. and then i realised that even if i do find out i dont know how to put it on the page. Many people like myself dont like the thought that my armour will eventually break. as this might come at the wrong time. or we just like not having to spend any more money beyond the intial cost and are willing to sacrifice a bit of stats for that. i would be very grateful if someone were to add this here.

"Somedays you just can't get rid of a bomb" 06:22, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Elemental weaknesses

I was wondering what 'kind of' monsters had what kind of elemental weakness.

(metal) dragons, demons, moss giants; 'nature and water-based'(?) monsters all have a weakness for fire spells.

only some 'fire-based' monsters (like the fire giant) have a weakness for water spells.

are there any other monsters with a weakness for water spells, let alone earth or wind based spells.

or are fire spells actually the only way to go? (Because then the tome of frost is basically useless, concerning it's water rune saving ability, except for ancient magicks then.)  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leon Art (talk).

To my knowledge there has not been any serious testing to determine what elemental weakness, if any, some monsters have. However, I don't think that the elements of a spell generally matter very much. For example, you would think that fire giants, being creatures of fire, would be fairly resistant to fire and earth spells, but you can pound on them just fine with Earth and Fire Surge. The weakness to fire spells that metal dragons have may simply be that most people use fire spells as they tend to be cheaper than earth and water spells, not to mention having higher max hits, and that metal dragons are weak to Magic in general. I dunno. Someone would have to spend a lot of money on spading for this. I'd be okay with that considering that knowing a monster's elemental weakness could provide mages with some badly needed perks in PvM. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:18, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

magic bonus systematically underpowered?

I was thinking if the magic bonusses are systematically underpowered.

look for example at the (metal) gloves, from the Culinaromancer's Chest, all the bonusses are 'high' compared to magic (and summoning) even strength! also the void knight gloves.

i wonder why.


also: melee armour has good defence against ranged; and ranged against magic.

melee has bad defense against magic; ranged has not so good defense against melee  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leon Art (talk).

but magic is practically bad at defense against everything except other magic. why??

I don't much like it either, but consider that you could be as naked as a newborn baby and be able to taunt meleers without getting hurt, simply by throwing binding spells at them and staying out of their range. Oh, and I believe that Magical accuracy is calculated in a different way than with melee or Ranged. Case in point: The most accurate melee weapon, the chaotic maul, gives +167 to Crush. Sighted magic longbows give +140 accuracy. The best Magic weapon in the game, on the other hand, in terms of accuracy, is the master wand: +20. Yes, there is a significant divide in the numbers there, but I don't think it's as significant as it looks... because I don't think that Jagex would intentionally screw mages that much and that obviously. (And this is coming from someone who regularly complains about how mages are poorly represented in the combat triangle and about how Magic in combat has many major flaws that need to be corrected right now.) --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:44, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but you have magical armour/robes that help giving magic bonus too.
I'm not sure how magic accuracy works (at all) if its different from the magic bonus it gives, and also the use of the magic bonus - also in relationship in the viod knight armour, sam counts for ranged btw. and I can't find an explaination i can follow. Not where I've looked anyway.
Besides you spend once a couple of bucks on a melee weapon, which are sometimes just a tiny bit more expensive than magic weapons, but the runes (and arrows) are an on going worry.
binding, taunting etc. is nice, but it requires precious inventory space for the additional runes, let alone the money it would cost. (ranged has a bolt pouch now, which helps i think. but mages can only save up dung tokens for blastbox which has limited use.) maybe there should be pouches for runes, like the ess pouches. idk, but it does seem weird to me.
and then there are the prayers that you can buy with dungeoneering, the melee variant is free: peity, doesn't seem fair either.
Futhermore, some dung rewards for magic seem, to mee, little practical use: the law/nature staff, the tome of frost, if there are limited mosters being extra vunerable to water spells, and its all about the hight of the spell lvl and you bonusses etc. then wouldn't a 'Papyrus of Fire' be more useful, or maybe a 'Tablet of Earth', both higher then the practically unused water runes/spells.Or maybe something that would profide free air runes, might be better, not necessarily as a shield slot item, parhaps like a 'Blouse of Air'.
and if the bonusses don't really matter, why not just choose the elemental, mind, body armours?
(btw, im sorry if i dont use "talk" properly, im new to this)
AnNd thanks for talking with me AndorinKato ;)
I'm sorry if I keep rattling and rambling, but there is jsut to much that i dont understand, and sometimes think could be better

Magic Equipment

I'm not really pleased with the section/chapter about "magic equiment", it seems very unfinished. When you look e.g. at the "Prayer#Armour_and_weapons" section, you'll see that (nearly) everything notable is listed. With magic that seems to be missing. And it souldn't. Unfortunately I lack the skills of making those tables, I have noticed. So I was hoping some-one else shares my idea about this and could help us out here. Much thanks in advance 83.163.195.89 22:30, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

That section was removed because it was way too big. The article about the skill itself does not need a few big honkin' tables of all Magic equipment that double its size. If you look, there are links in the text of those sections that lead to, for example, Armour/Magic armour. There are also links to the "best attack bonus" pages at the bottom of the section. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 15:53, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the links, but those don't give the info either. Tat about the highest magic def en magic attack, no in betweens. Leon Art 07:21, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
So... do you want a list of every item in the game that gives Magic bonuses? Or what? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:10, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
Well not necessarily every magic bonus there is, but relevant bonusses. It would be siully to list ht emagic bonus of an adamant plateskirt and leatehr chaps. Is this really so odd, to ask? :( Leon Art 10:09, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
No, not really. But who decides which items have relevant or notable bonuses? I wasn't thinking of magic penalties in my last post; I was thinking of items with positive Magic bonuses. A large table consisting of every item that gives a positive Magic bonus could be written up, but it wouldn't belong on the Magic article. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 18:20, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
^_^ yesh Leon Art 09:48, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

What else does "Defense casting" do?

Defense casting gives the caster, Magic, Constitution and Defense experience, where normal casting only gives (more) Magic experience and also (the same) Constitution exp.

With melee and ranged defense 'casting-equivalents' it effects also the nature of attacking. You get infisable def boots, so I heard. With accuracy attach you have a greater change of hitting, strength gives higher chance of hitting higher and rapid makes u shoot arrows faster. Does normal (mage) casting makes your spells more accurate too? IF so... we should add that too, right? Leon Art 13:35, July 1, 2011 (UTC).

I have never heard of any such bonus. That doesn't mean there isn't one, but I would think that someone would have noticed something. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 18:33, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
You mean with maging, or my other examples (melee and ranged)? Leon Art 23:39, July 1, 2011 (UTC).
Magic only. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:50, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
But it seems... like a proper assumption, right? Can we test it easily, somehow? Leon Art 12:45, July 2, 2011 (UTC).
If you or someone else can come up with a way to test it, you or they would be more than welcome to. Also, the proper formatting for discussions is to cumulatively indent comments with colons (:), so please don't replace those with bullets. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 17:57, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.