Hikensasameyuki

I'm well aware that invisible bonuses don't affect activities that are unlocked by achieving certain natural levels. However, I was unaware that the farming bonuses provided by summoning familiars were that type of bonus. It is certainly not clear from my reading of any guide on the subject whether or not that is the case.

Do any of them stack? For example, can one eat a garden pie for +3 and also take advantage of a familiar's respective farming bonus in addition?

Head: Helm of Neitiznot - acquired Amulet: Amulet of Fury - acquired Cape: Fire Cape Top: Armadyl's Chestplate Bottom: Armadyl's Legs Gloves: Dark Gloves - acquired Boots: Dragon Boots - acquired Ring: Warrior Ring - acquired Shield: Dragonfire Shield - acquired Weapon: Abyssal Whip - acquired

final update: on my last dose of potion (100 total antifire (4)s used), a second dragon skirt dropped. [/posting in this topic]

Dragon Slayer is another good option, but I wouldn't train defense at all before finishing it, as it gives a considerable amount of xp in defense as a reward.

no, they don't wander anywhere, unless you walk outside their ridiculously far-reaching ranged firebreath attack's range without exiting their actual territory (in which case they will take a few steps until you are back inside that range and begin attacking with their ranged firebreath once again). The only way to get them to melee attack you is to walk directly 1 grid space away from them (in which case they will alternate their melee attack and their "normal" firebreath attack, at about a rate of 4 melee attacks to each firebreath; if you have prayer points, running Protect From Melee is an ideal way to weather the storm if you run out of firebreath protection and want to finish your kill, as you will be hit by the less powerful melee range "normal" firebreath attack, and only 20% as often). On an unrelated note, I'm done defending myself against detractors in this thread. I'll leave it to everyone else to try the method and succeed with it or not.

Regardless of believability, I have sold none of the items I've mentioned, meaning I'd be happy to show them to you ingame. My RSN is included below my lack of avatar, to the left of this post. Feel free to add me to your friend list and meet me somewhere. To the poster who mentioned not to forget the cost of antifire potions, I advise you to reread my first post until you find where I didn't forget to mention their cost.

Definitely get the first 10-20 levels fighting with an iron melee weapon on defensive style, then switch to your ranged and magic training. Use only Long Range when training ranged, and choose the autocast option that also gives defense xp when training magic.

I don't think you guys understood the point of my post. If you reread it, you'll notice that I started there at 66 magic in full Mystic with rune gloves, glory amulet, and cape of zamorak. Sure, you'll splash a lot, and at 74 magic, I still do. I'm using mind rune spells for christ's sake! If you can't come to terms with that fact, then steel dragons are not the place for you ever, because there will be a significant number of misses no matter what your level may be. I gave a sound argument for why steel dragons are a viable option for mage training, no matter how many times your spells splash. I would love to hear someone who thinks I'm wrong come up with a better idea. Using fire strike, my spells cost 45gp per cast. A steel dragon kill takes 70-120 casts. That's 3150-5400gp per kill. If you're greedy enough to leave after 3 kills, their 100% drops cover that. I don't expect most people to be happy leaving with a load of steel bars and 3 dragon bones, but it is an option. My personal opinion is that using higher level spells there is only for the rich/foolish, as the problem of breaking even relies far more heavily on luck, the more expensive your spells are. I didn't post my drop list because I think everyone will be so lucky. I made a distinct point that the common drops (i.e., runite limbs, soul and blood runes, stackable rune projectiles) are enough to keep anyone going (for example, if you weren't well-off enough to spend all the money to reach your goal in one fell swoop, like I did). I just wanted people to recognize that those kind of drops are a distinct possibility, and should be kept in mind. Let's not forget how commonly they drop clues (level 3), as this is another source of basically free income from easily high alched or merchanted items.

I guarantee you don't have to speak to him, because I didn't speak to him, and I got the drop.

Relax and replace your two hand-wielded items with an adamant halberd. There is a safespot in the cave where you fight the demon, just ask someone to help you find it, or consult a fansite guide so you're prepared before you go. Remember to use the strength-based attack style to take advantage of the halberd's highest attack bonus. No food necessary if done correctly, but definitely still bring a full inventory just to be safe.

Not to mention runite limbs, which are a ridiculously common drop, and now a highly salable item due to the recent updates to crossbows. I have gotten over 50 of them already, and I'd say they drop about as often as any other rune level ranged item from steel dragons. Remember your wealth ring, and you'll do fine there.

Break even? Shoot, maybe I'm just lucky, but I'm doing far better than breaking even. I've trained from 66 to now almost 75 magic, and I've gotten the following drops in that time: Dragon Platelegs x1 Dragon Plateskirt x1 Dragon Medium Helmet x2 Shield Left Half (Dragon) x1 Draconic Visage x1 Since I'm a cheapskate, I bought all the runes I needed to cast fire STRIKE to level 90 magic, which is approximately 120k minds, 240k airs, and mystic fire staff. Mind runes and air runes, both at 15gp each from tortured runecrafters cost me a total of 5.4 million gp. 100 antifire potions (4) were purchased from an herblorist who was having trouble finding buyers at the time, so I pounced on them at a mere 2.5k each. After spending barely over 200k on the mystic staff and mystic robe parts I didn't already have, I set out to train like a douchebag, having spent less than 6 million gp on end-to-end mage training to 90 magic. I've barely fired off 10% of the runes I bought, and I've already looted the dragons for so much that I'm bored and ready to move on to Kalphite Queen trips or Barrows runs. Not to mention I've reaped every possible rare drop from the beasts, plus 50+ rune crossbows and countless other rune items. Together with the rewards from following their treasure trails, I can conservatively estimate that my profits have exceeded the total startup cost by a factor of 20 or more (meaning over 120 million gp in loot profits) - and I have 90% of my magic training left to do! Final word: magic training at steel dragons is profitable for everyone, starting at level 1 magic. End of story.

Enchanted Top and Enchanted Bottom worn with Ancient Staff and Glory Amulet. the top and bottom are rewards from treasure trails.

The phenomenon of the Rune 2hander KO used by rangers on free servers is what some might consider an exploit of the way weapon speed is programmed into the game (though it is not). The reason the 2 handed sword in general seems slow is that all weapons are programmed to delay your character from attacking for a certain amount of time - in other multiplayer online adventure games, this is generally referred to as a 'cooldown.' The 2 handed sword in all its various instantiations has extremely high attack and strength relative to other weapons of the same material - and to balance this, a very high delay after each attack (a long 'cooldown,' if you will). Rangers on free servers, being of sound mind, realized the usefulness of the 2 handed sword as a sidearm, used only for what they intended as their final killing blow when PKing. You've probably noticed that, for all intents, the 2 handed sword doesn't become a 'slow weapon' until after its first attack... so, of course when you wield and attack with it immediately after attacking with a shortbow, it seems to "attack really fast for that one attack (like your still using range)" - because you are still using range, at least in this sense: the cooldown or delay from the last shortbow firing is still the active one, making the intended KO hit from the 2 hander seem faster than when it is used when its own delay is in effect. Now that you understand how turn timing works in Runescape, you can see that this is not something that could ever be 'nerfed,' since it's based on an integral bit of programming, and not something that Jagex never intended rangers to be able to do in the first place.

all the "skills" that were introduced after the graphical update. Starting with Runecrafting.

nah, black dragons drop rune knives too, so I imagine tons of other monsters drop them as well.

amazing that this thread went through four pages without anyone answering one of the most common questions voiced within it. All white armor items require 20 defense to wear, all white weapons require 20 attack to wield. Same goes for initiate plate armor items, and yes, even the white gloves and boots require 20 defense.

...not to mention the fact that they are untradable means that if you die while wearing them and they are not one of the items you protect, you have to pay the chest to replace them.

I'm not sure how true that assertion is. I use one of my characters to kill black dragons with a dragon halberd on a constant basis, and I've never hit more than twice, though black dragons are a 3 x 3 tile monster.

Just yesterday I did a level 3 trail from a black dragon, and got FOUR rune pickaxes in the casket.

yup, just like any other risky minigame.

In response to the most recent and ridiculous attempt at slandering my online presence, I'm not going to make the usual allowances for editing the quoted so as to make him seem more intelligent than in reality. This is, of course, so as not to place undue burden on my time, simply in regard to the massive number of hideous errors in grammar and syntax that the post in question contained. Hereafter, quotes will appear simply as originally written. Plus it just amuses me more to pretend to refute his non-arguments when every single word he writes is misspelled, incorrectly used, or totally invented. Enjoy. This is basically the same preposterous assertion that you rephrase in increasingly annoying, incorrect, and totally irrelevant ways, throughout the remainder of your rambling, incoherent response (everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it - Billy Madison is quite fitting here - at any rate, I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul). Whatever meaning you intend to be conveyed by your apparently pivotal term 'true weight' completely escapes any reader, as you never enumerate it. I can only imagine that by 'true' you meant to evoke 'constant' or some other equivalent concept. I certainly hope this is not the case, as that type of assertion would make your ignorance of the tenets of physics literally undeniable; weight is, by definition, not a constant, but rather a variable (which, for any particular massive body varies multiplicatively depending on the relative strength of the net gravitational force acting on that body at a time t). If you meant to argue against the common understanding that iron 'has' weight, you may have been able to actually contribute to the discussion. However, you neither advanced that argument nor contributed to the discussion in any other way. No, there is not only mass. The very relation you describe concerning mass under gravitational force is precisely what we mean when we use the word weight, and indeed provides for its conceptualization in the field of theoretical physics. Countless pertinent and indispensible equations in the science depend on the salience of considering weight in relation to other variables and constants which represent characteristics of massive bodies and other relevant forces. This is all, of course, not to mention the preposterous notion that iron could weigh more than air without having more mass. I can't imagine any other readers of my post thought for even an instant that this was the position for which I was arguing. Almost as importantly, weight is a more meaningful part of our collective vocabulary than mass, simply because the realm of social interaction for the most part takes place within the same field of gravity, rendering weight just as descriptive, if not more descriptive, than mass. Consider for a moment the fact that no one on earth knows their mass (in kilograms, generally) in any other way than by being 'weighed' on a scale that outputs its results in kilos rather than the actual property it was measuring - weight. When you thought for a fraction of a second that you might understand what I was saying, you were on the right track. Perhaps you should have forged ahead toward that understanding, rather than slamming your forehead repeatedly against a wall of ignorance. The fact that you resort to ad hominem attacks on my character further undermines the shaky ground on which your non-arguments are precariously balanced. Were I to respond in kind, I would notice that your username has the word 'god' in it, and accuse you of being a religious zealot. Basically, you may as well have made fun of me for having an 'oriental-sounding' username. I find this one even funnier because it's based on a simple misunderstanding of linguistic convention. It would serve you well to remember in future verbal exchanges that in english, the phrase "doesn't just" is used to indicate that what immediately follows is something that is already agreed upon, but that the speaker intends to convey an additional predication of meaning to the subject, beyond that which is already assumed to be agreed upon between the speaker and audience. To be specific, in the case concerned, I used "doesn't just" to indicate that, while I consider it agreed upon that iron has mass, it "doesn't just have mass," it "also" has weight. Note how the use of "doesn't just" was followed shortly by "also." This is something you can look out for, as it will denote the additional predication, which is generally the substance of the utterance. Furthermore, iron "doesn't just" have more mass than the surrounding gases which comprise the earth's atmosphere, it "also" weighs more in earth's gravitational field, which is why iron 'falls' toward the earth's surface when 'dropped.' As you can probably see by now, your entire post was not only arguing (I use the term perhaps so loosely here that it loses all meaning, but only for lack of a better word, as the mood of the post was clearly argumentative, whether it actually made one or not) for something that is both widely accepted and considered within this topic to be agreed upon, but was in the spirit of using me as a 'straw man' against which to argue your moot point. This is not only rude, but ignorant. I advise you to avoid this kind of self-denigrating and audacious behavior in the future. Even more interesting that this was the very next sentence. After just recently denying that objects have weight as well as mass, you immediately and explicitly assert that very fact. Not much needs to be said about the 'logic' (rather, the lack thereof) of this kind of 'argument.' However, it should be noted that size/shape are encapsulated terms in physics, making their independent consideration wholly irrelevant. That is to say, in physics, size and shape come as a package referred to as 'volume.' Keep in mind that in conventional language, two objects can be the same size (that is, in the language of physics, have mathematically identical values representing their respective volumes - reported in mÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâó or some other such unit) without having the same shape, but not vice versa; this gives you an approximate grasp of how size/shape interact in physics. Interestingly, objects that we would, in conventional language, say have the same shape, but not mathematically identical volumes, are not considered in the language of physics to have the same shape. They are, instead, considered to have 'analagous' shapes. This simply means that the two objects in question represent two instantiations of an archetypal possible shape, but at different and mutually exclusive points on the volume ratio gradient for that archetype (a sphere is one example of an archetypal shape). Furthermore, it is possible for such 'analogs' to have the same mass without being the same shape, so long as the object with less volume is appropriately more dense. This is how we make sense of the interaction between mass and volume - density; we take the units from mass (g, or some prefixed form of the unit), the units from volume (again, usually mÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâó), and when dividing the mass by volume to determine how dense the object in question is, we perform the same operation on the units of measurement, and report the object's density in g/mÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâó, for instance. This is, in essense, a meaningless jumble of angry words spilling out of your mind before you have a chance to consider their complete irrelevance to my post, not to mention the fact that these kind of accusations make a better argument against you as a credible source than against me. This is a grammatically misconceived and slightly misleading encapsulation of gravity, but is microcosmically correct in a few ways. However, words like 'pull' and 'down' are not exactly the most widely applicable, and you should point out that the figures you present here are strictly rough estimates of the force of gravity near the surface of our planet. The force of gravity is vastly different depending on what bodies are considered in relation to each other (you've heard of black holes, I'm sure; also known as 'gravity wells,' they produce forces which are quite a bit stronger than our earth's field; of course, due to their incredible density and resultant high mass). Also keep in mind that we most often consider the 'net force' of gravity; that is, the product of all the gravitational forces acting at a locus, reported as a vector. Though this is perhaps an extraneous consideration, it doesn't hurt to keep in mind that it's "not just" the earth which produces the gravitational field around itself. Also, when you mention 'friction,' I imagine you intended to refer to 'air resistance,' which, though undeniably similar to friction, is a wholly independent concept with its own unique properties. If this is what argument destruction looks like, I must admit that I'm seeing it for the first time. I guess I had imagined the idea of 'argument destruction' in a slightly different way. If I had to imagine what got you off on the wrong track, it would probably be shallow reading of my post, which resulted in your lack of comprehension and eventual misguided confusion. I think you made an attribution error common to young people who are just being introduced to the ideas of physics as a science. Often, it seems offensive to refer to the 'weight' of an object, when it is not a constant and universal value. The aspiring physicist thinks to himself, "Why not just use a constant - its mass value - instead?" What you need to remember is that the apparent absurdity lies in, for example, the idea of reporting the 'weight' of the entire earth in terms of the gravitational force it supplies to other massive bodies, because it is itself the massive body which produces the gravity used to determine weight values of bodies within its net field. However, this does not preclude the 'weight' of any component part of the earth itself from being accurately and productively considered. Even the 'potential weight' of the earth in its entirety (were it possible for the earth to 'weigh' within its own field) can be calculated by including values for its known mass and the force of its own gravitational field. Though this sort of calculation is certainly more possible than it is meaningful, it gets to the root of your confusion: on earth, the earth (in toto) does not have weight, since it is itself the source of the gravity which attributes weight to other massive bodies in its field; however, as soon as a front-end loader digs up a load of dirt, the portion of the earth contained in its bucket has a definite, meaningful 'weight' value. Moreover, the earth (in toto) does indeed have weight in relation to other massive bodies which exert gravitational forces on it. Though pounds as a measure of weight are a unit specific to the power of earth's gravitational field, they are still generally used when reporting weight for other systems of gravitational interaction. I assume this is simply because doing so remains the best way to keep discussion of such relations coherent and comprehensible to humans, who in large part spend their lives within earth's gravitational field. To clear up any confusion, I'm 26 years old. I have two university degrees, one of which is a bachelor of science degree. I am a published author and a contributor to several scientific journals. I do believe that bodies have mass. I also believe that massive bodies within gravitational fields have weight. Furthermore, I believe that iron cannonballs are just this type of thing - massive bodies within gravitational fields - and they have weight because of that fact. I like using weight values whenever possible, because they are more informative than mass values; they not only relay mass information, but also information regarding the strength of gravitational force present. They are most certainly a relevant and socially acceptable form of communication regarding the properties of objects we consider in discussions of this type. My advice to you, o young sage: enjoy high school while it lasts. Try to learn some things while you're there. Come back after you've taken some university courses - preferably in physics, metaphysics, epistemology, inorganic chemistry, sociology, rhetoric, semantics, linguistics, and for christ's sake, english - and read my posts again when you're ready to absorb their content. To everyone else: I'm looking for a group of dedicated individuals to critically read the post I've just quoted, with the aim of producing a categorized inventory of the total number of language errors committed within. PM me if you're interested in spending the rest of your life futilely parsing 'sentences' and attempting to determine the intended meaning of invented 'words,' toward an objective which will remain unrealized even long after your death. Good luck to all who apply.

I hardly think I ruined the topic with my replies, though I find this to be as much a philosophical and psychological discussion of perceived anomalies within the game as it is one deeply rooted in physical science. Either way, I welcome more of this type of insight. If you were to read only the emboldened 'Bottom Line' parts of my previous post, you can get a pretty good idea of at least a few ways in which unrealistic concepts from a game scenario can at least be explained by partial analog to other concepts with which we are familiar from our experience of the actual world. Not all game ideas are completely fantastical in an arbitrary way, and to be honest, Runescape does no worse a job of injecting pseudo- and quasi-scientific content into it's physics system than any other mainstream multiplayer title. So, while it remains undeniably a fantasy game, simple extrapolations are all it takes to draw relations between the physics of Runescape and that of the real world. Remember, the people who bring you Runescape have no access other than to their real world experience and their imaginations; no more than the game's users. So, while plenty of things that happen in the game don't/can't happen in real life, they arguably still have their roots in a well-founded grasp of reality. Imagination is what makes the difference between how things behave in the game and how things that resemble them behave in the world of sense experience which otherwise surrounds us.

On a related note, how in hell do I get back into the city after dying? The wanderer is gone, I can't use the gates yet, and the hole to escape through the wall only works from the inside. I have no idea where on the actual map the secret entrance was, if that's what I'm supposed to use.