This talk page is for discussing Charms.
Sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to the RuneScape Wiki? Read our FAQ.	Be civil Assume good faith Don't delete discussions Take a neutral point of view

Contents 1 Untitled 2 Clv309 3 Abyssal n obby charms 4 Help from knowledgeable person please 5 Drop table/Input and consensus NEEDED 6 Charms calculator 7 Kalphite queen? 8 Why not tradeable? 9 "Single charm droppers" 10 Removed references 11 charm drops 12 Shadow warriors 12.1 Relative charm value 13 Suggestion on charms 14 Error in Charm Drop Rates table 15 Obtaining Charms

UntitledEdit

Giant Spiders drop Gold Charms SOMETIMES, it's quite rare but it does happen.

If you get a drop from something that has a zero listed go ahead and update, no one should argue about it. This stuff is still developing. I also am going to start doing values in a range instead of solid numbers, to be a little more accurate.--Degenret01 06:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems as if a monster drops one charm, it drops them all (excluding the abyssal and obsidian charms). For instance, moss giants frequently drop golds and occasionally some greens. Some people assume that is all that the mossies drop, but I know for a fact they drop blue and crimson as well. Granted, blues are very rare, but they do drop. I think that Degenret has a good idea on making some sort of drop percentage rate for the charms being dropped by specific monsters, it will be much more accurate. As I DK ^(talk) 10:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Clv309 Edit

If you only love to delete but not be helpful or contribute, then please go away. In over 100 changes to this page your only action was to delete something without replacing it. That is not helpful.--Degenret01 08:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Abyssal n obby charms Edit

After the second batch of critters gets released and we know what we need for them, if these charms remain secondary ingredients they should each be move to thier own pages, and not stay with the others, being of a totally different category. Anyone?--Degenret01 09:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 09:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Charms should be tradable.

Help from knowledgeable person please Edit

There was a table tat showed what monsters dropped charms at approximately what rates and Butterman wrongly deleted it. I can't get it back. Does anyone know how? It was not the current table showing what increments they drop in, but about how many charms one could get by killing 100 of each creature type. The version "23:09, 8 March 2008 71.231.230.240" is the last to have the table that many many people put countless hours into for the benefit of all.--Degenret01 08:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I had to delete it, and it was not wrong. It violated RS:SG. Butterman62 (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

An additional note: To be honest, I actually liked the table and I disagree with the policy. Yet, rules are rules. Maybe you should ask for it to be taken away on the yew grove. Butterman62 (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Need help still from someone who knows how to fix blunder of butterman.--Degenret01 01:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Degenret, it was not a blunder. Please see the note on your talk page and re-read policies. Rules are rules. Butterman62 (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean RuneScape:Style guide#Drop logs? Why don't they belong in articles? They're useful.  C Teng ^talk 01:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't belong in articles, because they're not based off of percentages or fact, they're based off of luck. And since no one has the same luck, they're not really that useful. Ben Ryfos^Talk 04:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Drop table/Input and consensus NEEDED Edit

Please note, any further discussion on this topic should take place here.

Because I do not want an edit war or something (or to get blocked) I say we need a discussion regarding a drop table. A drop table would have the average number of charms someone could expect to get by killing 100 of any of the listed creatures. This is not the same as a drop log because its' numbers will be based on the experiences of 2 or more people. More whenever possible. When the table was up I referred many people ingame to it and it was greatly appreciated by them. I further state that the table should stay based upon RS:IAR for any who would like to argue that it violates a rule. People, we need a consensus on whether it should happen. Please input.--Degenret01 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I am new as a registered user, but I have used this wiki for about 6 months now. So I am not a total noob. (Just a minor one). I am not sure that the table can be called a lot different than a drop log (isn't it like a SUMMARY drop log?) but the point regarding RS:IAR looks very valid. Even the statements of Butterman seem to suggest he would have not done so had he been aware of that. But shouldn't this be on Yew grove to get consensus? --Varthlokkur 03:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really Yew Grove appropriate. It's only affecting one page, and IMHO that should stay on this talk page. However, as to the drop log point, as far as I'm concerned, it IS a drop log. As far as I'm concerned, it DOES help the article. I'd rather a list like that then a T/F thing over which monster drops charms. Although, I'd prefer more than just 2 people killing 100 monsters each. So we'll need to work on that. =P Add at least 5, and probably at least 500 monsters, averaged out to be charms per 100. Ben Ryfos^Talk 04:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Degenret has a point with RS:IAR. I also told him on his talk page that I disagreed with the RS:SG policy, and that we could attempt to change it (I've initiated a policy change before, specifically RS:AEAE). And to be honest, I didn't know this policy existed on the RuneScape wiki before (but I've seen it on Wikipedia). Also, I realize the table's potential benefit to the wiki. However, also, it could also cause a lot of problems. For example, let's say a user did some testing, so he changes up the table a bit to say "20 gold charms" for so and so instead of 15. Then, someone disagrees, he says it's 10. Then another person does it, and he gets lucky and says it's 40. And on and on and on. However, the table could help and as everyone says, "anyone can edit" and "if you don't want your contributions to be mercilessly edited, then don't submit them". So, maybe it wouldn't be a problem, but then who knows.

Also, to another point, I think this should be on the yew grove, because maybe it's only affecting one page now, but it might will affect more later. Some day, someone will come along and try to do the same thing for, say, abyssal whip drop rate from abyssal demon. Then someone changes the rate, and someone disagrees with that rate, and someone disagrees with the table altogether, and here we go again. Butterman62 (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Varthlokkur, your opinion is valued just as much as everyone else's. All editors are equal. Butterman62 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a Yew Grove topic because we are talking about changing board wide policy, I'm going to move it over there so to those who wish to add their two cents, please go here: RuneScape:Yew_grove.--Diberville 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see this changing any policy. So I am only going to discuss it here. I agree that 2 peoples numbers aren't enough to be accurate. This was supposed to be a group project from the get go, but as the newness of summoning fell away so to did the interest in it. But eventually all ranges would be fairly accurate as it would be updated anytime someone had more data for it. Obviously there will be times when someone gets numbers outside the stated range, in a game full of randomness that is to be expected. But as the info heading the table stated, it was to be a GENERAL GUIDELINE. To give people an APPROXIMATE idea of what they could expect, and so choose what to kill accordingly based on what charms they are after. That being said, I will continue to update the ranges on my userpage. And only there. If anyone else ever decides to put them back here, cool. But since I just spent 20 minutes reading all Buttermans comments about me to admins and it seems he wants me booted/blocked, I am not going to do anything else that will get him all freaking out. He should know though, that I did not put the table back up to antagonize him. I did it because I believe (and still strongly do) that it IMPROVES the article. And all thats all I really care about--Degenret01 09:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that you are trying to improve the article and that it is not to antagonize me. I have always been assuming good faith of you. In fact, I've acknowledged that four times on your talk page alone (one from Diberville). [1][2][3][4] Butterman62 (talk) Ian Gower:Ice Barrage.png|20px]] 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll just put the table back. The wiki is something that anyone can edit, and it is most valuable when that happens. Also, the RS:IAR brings up a point. Butterman62 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Buttermans comment on Christine's talk page is clear for all to see. Allow me to rebut where a couple people may see it. I really don't want to have this discussion but since Butter wants to put up all these links where he says he is playing nice I want people to see the one that matters. The one where he asked an admin to stop me. First please note the sequence of events.1-Table removed from Charms. 2-Table placed on my personal page. 3- Butterman tells me to take it off my own page and then talks to User_talk:Whiplash about it, where he is told its ok to be on my personal page, so then apologizes. 4-I restore it to the Charms page referring to IAR. 5-Butterman then proceeds to User_talk:Clv309 making his comments, totally ignoring the IAR I mentioned as reason for putting it back up. 6-This one isn't Butter, this is now Whiplash totally ignoring IAR as a reason and removing table from Charms.

Yes, there was some earlier back and forth between myself and Butterman, which resulted in the table coming down. And at that time I was very angry and wrongly called him a vandal. And it stayed down until I found a valid allowance to put it back up. And then he wants me punished for it. So, you can say a million times "lets work together " but your actions are much different. I will continue to update table on my page. For at least a few weeks until more people can agree it gets to stay here.

Okay, stop with the fighting, please. It's not helping anyone. ANYWAY, I think I've come up with a solution that gets rid of all the main issues I've seen with this.

My idea is that we create a template that, when new numbers come in, get an average per number of charms per 100 monsters. If a user wants to add in more data, it could be as simple as adding in (20/100) to a template where 20 is the number of charms you got, and 100 is the number of monsters killed. We should limit it so that "100" can't be anything lower than maybe.. 50 to ensure semi-accurate results, and at that point, any user could add into the data, without the original data being "worth less" as what would happen when you average the two results together, and then average those two together, and then those two together... Ben Ryfos^Talk 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Degenret, would you please stop slandering me on the mainspace talk?

"1-Table removed from Charms."

We've gone over this countless times.

"2-Table placed on my personal page. 3- Butterman tells me to take it off my own page and then talks to User_talk:Whiplash about it, where he is told its ok to be on my personal page, so then apologizes."

Wrong. I just misread the user contributions. I thought you actually put it on the article, then realized it was on your userpage instead. And, if you're correct about this, then why did I cross it out 13 DAYS before Whiplash actually said anything? Stop assuming bad faith.

"4-I restore it to the Charms page referring to IAR. 5-Butterman then proceeds to User_talk:Clv309 making his comments, totally ignoring the IAR I mentioned as reason for putting it back up."

I did not totally ignore it. You did this without any discussion of sorts. IAR is not a quick-fix. Also, you have been told many times and you still didn't listen. Another thing is that the comment on Christine's talk page was not only the table. It was also your issues with civility and assuming bad faith, but the table was just a tipping point.

"6-This one isn't Butter, this is now Whiplash totally ignoring IAR as a reason and removing table from Charms."

See? I'm not the only one who thinks that policies should be followed and you're the only one who's been assuming bad faith (again) what you said that I was a vandal (which I understand you have apologized for, but now your actions say differently). IAR is not a quick fix.

"So, you can say a million times "lets work together " but your actions are much different."

I have tried to work with you many many times (Christine and Diberville probably agree) but your assumptions of bad faith and civility issues have been the primary impediment. Perhaps maybe you haven't seen that I've been trying to help because your paradigm that I am a vandal hasn't gone away. So this is why I'm taking such action. And until it does, this won't go anywhere. Butterman62 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2008

Ben, this thing your proposing, could it still display ranges instead of a solid number for each data block?

And User:Urssaff was suggesting it be wikitable. I'm not sure what that mean, but if it means them little arrows to sort the columns with it sounds cool. Would that be any trouble to add? Also, the idea that a min of 50 kills is needed to update the table is a good one. I have been following that guideline for all the data I have added. What help would you need from us? Also, I do not currently have my original doc with all the original data on it. It listed how many people had killed each monster so far. But that comp crashed and I am having trouble trying to get another comp to talk to it to recover my stuff. So would we also want to track how many peoples inputs were used for each creature?--Degenret01 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I can do a few tests with wiki functions, but I'm sure I could get a little template to do it. I'll start working, and hopefully, be able to see what we can do by the end of today. Ben Ryfos^Talk 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A drop list is the sort of thing that goes with a monster, probably in a DB. A list of how the spread of charms differs between animals is VERY relevant to this article, and unique. Not a whole-wiki issue.tobylane^Talk 15:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Charms calculatorEdit

I've made a basic charm calculator, right now it supports up to five different values per monster, if we need more, I can add them in. Basically, here's the code:

10 Each first number is the number of charms received, each second number is the number of monsters killed. Up to 5 sets of numbers can be added. Ben Ryfos^Talk 17:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good so far. I have very very little understanding of how your doing it so if my questions seem weird or whatever just blame my inexperience in this matter. Will it remember how many times data is input for each monster? So that any one persons (or that particular turn of killing that particular monster) is weighted accordingly? I totally understand this is probably not a priority for you so I do not want you to feel that I am trying to pressure you in case it comes off this way. A calculator that is built right that can continuously adjust its output for as long as we need is far more important than speed. But I have another question now. Will there be a way to review each set of inputs? Just like looking at a revision? I would really not want for some vandal to come along and put in like 9999 crimsons for killing 50 skeletons.

It weighs each kill equally, whether or not charms are given. It also automatically discards any kill counts under 50, and you can obviously tell if there's some vandal edit in it, but it's not going to discard them automatically. Ben Ryfos^Talk 17:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Kalphite queen? Edit

On the Kalphite queen page, it says that she drops 10 of each charms. However, it is not listed as a multiple charm dropper on this page... does anyone have any confirmation that she is/isn't? See also: Talk:Kalphite Queen Gaz Lloyd 13:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not tradeable? Edit

Can somebody explain to me why charms aren't tradeable? -Nalyd Renrut —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nalyd Renrut (talk) on 12:32, July 4, 2008.

They just aren't. I assume that Jagex did this to prevent quick leveling - Summoning is easily one of the more useful skills, so getting a high level (and then using the level) must be hard, otherwise combat would be very overpowered. Imagine, if they were tradeable, you could be level 15/16 and be able to summon a level 230 monster, with 754 hitpoints which will remain out for over an hour. A little overpowered I think. (See Steel titan.)  Gaz Lloyd _Awesome^Events!_99s 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Single charm droppers" Edit

It would be nice if somebody could devise a way to organize the Single Charm Droppers section of the article to give it a more aesthetic look, as opposed to a really long line of monster names. I'll get right on testing some ways in my sandbox, but please post your ideas here. Thanks,

CFLM ^{Talk # Sign} 13:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put the NPCs into a bulleted list, so it won't look as cluttered. Does anyone know how to put the list into two columns, so the section isn't too long?  C Teng ^talk 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this list really even worth having? It's very incomplete and there are far more comprehensive lists on the individual charm pages. --Ty2490 00:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed referencesEdit

Part of the revision I just made to this article was to replace the list of references at the end with in-line citations using Template:Cite web in conjunction with the <ref> tag (which we should be doing wherever possible). I removed completely two links that were listed here, but which did not seem to have any relevance. One was [http://www.runescape.com/kbase/viewarticle.ws?article_id=2526 Temple Trekking / Burgh de Rott Ramble], for which charms do not seem to be a possible reward (the only reasonable reason I could of for how it might be relevant). The other was to [http://www.runescape.com/kbase/viewarticle.ws?article_id=660 Summoning - Changes], which is a broken link now, and I can't find a cached copy on either Google or [http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.runescape.com/kbase/viewarticle.ws?article_id=660 Archive.org] (which Jagex has opted out of, just to make our lives harder). It may refer to the [http://news.runescape.com/newsitem.ws?id=1072 Summoning Changes update] of 17 January 2008. If either of these are relevant then feel free to put them back, but please indicate how they are relevant, preferably as an in-line citation in the correct place. :-) Leevclarke ^talk 20:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, looks good (though the code looks horrific). The link to Temple Trekking/Burgh de Rott Ramble I guess was in regards to talon beast charms, which can only be obtained during it (and you can get the coloured charms from cremating any vyrewatch you might encounter on a trek/ramble too, but vyrewatch are elsewhere too). Though you are right about charms not given as a reward directly, kind of a side present. Anyway, grear job with the citing.  Gaz Lloyd _Awesome^Events!_99s 21:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

charm drops Edit

what do you guys think about charms affecting other drops? in my opinion when i was doing black dragons i got all the time charms, and nothing else. so are the charm drops replacing the good drops so that they are even rarer to get than before the charms?

It doesn't affect the rare drops you should think of the drop chance as a spinning wheel, when you spin the weel it will stop at a certain point. If a monster would have as example only 1 drop and it's very rare, the space that the pointer could stop is very small. The white space would be "nothing". If u add spaces the other one wont become smaller. But you would have a lesser chance of it stopping at "nothing. But this isn't even the case at charms because it is another spinning wheel as it is added to the drop and not a replacement.--j-g 23:39, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Shadow warriors Edit

Who do you think have completed Legends quest at lvl 60?! Fix it!!! I can't belive someone made this under 40-60 crimson charm.

(sorry for my english)

Relative charm valueEdit

Here is the csv text file of my data so you can use the data

[gold equivalance.csv]

Loqk 12:39, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion on charms Edit

By this other guy cause I dont know how to make a bold words or straight line like yours.

The better solution: why dont they summoning charms be creatable by players only and the best part is that it wont be tradeable to any other people except for the person who created it. It will be the best thing to happen in the summoning training cause I still dont believe that their are already 99 levles in it so why cant we get to their level quicker instead of time consuming. know as guru p.s. its a win/win for jagex of the new skill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.129.74.155 (talk).

I moved your comment from the "Clv309" section because you seemed to want to start a new topic but were unsure how. You can get that by clicking on the "New section" button at the top of the Talk page.

Please remember to sign your comments on Talk pages with four tildes.

Oh, and while this may be a valid suggestion, the Talk pages are for discussions on improving the articles (i.e., what is actually in the game), not suggestions for new content. For that, it is probably best to post to the RuneScape official Forums. Thanks, and happy editing! JalYt-Mej-Wynde 16:25, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Error in Charm Drop Rates table Edit

The Moss Giant entry attempt turns into red, meaning the page doesn't exist. Just look there and you'll see what I mean. I'm not able to fix it because I don't have an idea on how the templates are organized, nor do I know the numbers required for the table. I'm just making this in hopes that someone who does know what to do will come and fix it. Zel-2219 22:38, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

That's due to there being an error in the data, for example, too many charms per kill. [Walrus068|talk] 22:38, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Obtaining Charms Edit

The wording in the Obtaining charms section, makes no sense.

"This section is designed to aid in deciding what to attack while trying to obtain as many charms as possible. The sections are divided not based on combat, but the advantage of the level of the skill the player is using, their Constitution, their Defence, and their Prayer on the higher numbers. Players can also use Summoning if they are fighting monsters in a multi-combat zone."

Breaking it down:

1) This section is designed to aid in deciding what to attack while trying to obtain as many charms as possible.

Perfectly clear what the purpose of that section is for.

2) The sections are divided not based on combat, but the advantage of the level of the skill the player is using, their Constitution, their Defence, and their Prayer on the higher numbers

What does that mean? There are 5 columns which are, 1-30, 30-60, 60-69, 70-100, 100+. If these columns do not represent the player's combat level, what does it represent? "...the advantage of the level of the skill the player is using..." <-- What? The wording in that sentence needs to be changed to convey exactly what it's supposed to mean. As it stands, it makes no sense.

3) Players can also use Summoning if they are fighting monsters in a multi-combat zone.

Though, this is a true statement, it seems out of place under the current heading. Will try to find a better place for that statement.

IntrepidX 05:55, September 21, 2011 (UTC)