Talk:Combat pure

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the Combat pure page.

Untitled[edit source]

Cbp what is wrong with the section "A pure is a player who works solely on certain skills, focusing all their attention to make those skills stronger. However, this leads to a pure having relatively low skills in other areas. Pures fall into two categories: Combat pures and Non-combat pures." -- Couchpotato99 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is already explained, with more information, in the next paragraph.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbp 13 (talk) on 20:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC).

You need an introduction at the beginning, something so that people can tell what it is at a glance. -- Couchpotato99 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do people still use pures?[edit source]

Are pures really necessary now that the Wilderness has been changed? Zeldafanjtl 21:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There are still combat level restraints, so yes, pures are still just as effective. Musashi X 00:58, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Much more to be said on this subject.[edit source]

This entry only covers the basics of the common Free Play, low level pure; however, much, much more is to be said about the varioius forms of Pay To Play pures, ranging from the very common level 49 pure ranger to the rare maxed out pures that push level 90. There is also a lot more to be said about pures, the basic techniques used by them, and the current state of them in the wilderness than what the brief explainations of this article provide. Some bits of this article are also a tad outdated (since the writing/last edit of this article, it notes the price of "essence" as 20-30 gp each, whereas now, quite a bit after the pure essence update, pure essence can cap at 100 gp each). Are some major edits in order, or shall we leave the article as it is, and leave it as more of a basic explaination of what a "pure" is?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grammar Pwns (talk) on 02:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

I added a ton more about p2p pures, and fixed the biased info in a way.

All my edits are rough sketches of accurate information on the topic, and are not in anyway guarenteed to be written effeciently, grammatically correct, or to up to standards. Other users may willingly fix statistical, grammatical, and any other sort of errors that I have expressed, which may or may not mislead the reader.

Written information, by cjgone2, is by no means accurate or correct, but are assumed truthful to cjgone2's knowledge.


~Thanks cjgone2  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjgone2 (talk) on 00:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

wtf??[edit source]

This whole article is f2p biased we need an article on p2p pures which are much more interesting, I don't think any pure would fight in full iron by the way.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.195.85.25 (talk) on 12:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Please make an account...And they use full iron because they have level 1 Defence and can't wear anything better. That's why I'm changing it back... JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Same as above ~cjgone2  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjgone2 (talk) on 00:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Criticism[edit source]

IMO, it's a strikingly dumb strategy to be a pure. I level my combat skills equally, but there was one time I banked all my items and went to explore the wilderness. As was inevitable, some dude with the same combat level as me -- but with the addition of a rune longsword and a bit of armour -- decided to attack me and my character nearly took him out unarmed. He must have had a pathetic defense level for fists to rival a rune weapon.

Being a pure does not make oneself a complete prayer. There are skills beyond pure aggression and it is folly to neglect them. -- 216.16.236.2 06:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote a good majority of this article is..[edit source]

An idiot who knows nothing about pures. There's no such thing as a 'Pure Warrior'. I tried fixing as much as I could, but there is still mucho work to be done. :| B4rr4g3 You 21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I made it a little more comprehensive and added links, should the cleanup tag still remain? --Themurasame Hiscores 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Twin[edit source]

Why does "Twin" redirect here? If I typed in Twin I'd be looking for Molly. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 18:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Search "twin" on the Official Forums. It's a player-killing term for two players with a similar name, similar stats etc. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t) 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
So why isn't that in the article? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 07:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll add it then. >_< May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t) 09:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pure nonsense[edit source]

I started playing just over a month ago. One thing I could never find explained is why someone would want to create a pure. I had to deduct that it was to keep combat level low so that pk'ing people at your combat level would be easy. This article talks about pures but it doesn't give any information about why anyone would ever want to create one.

It's been asked before but I've yet to see someone answer... Is there any reason to create a pure now that pvp is gone?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nubricon (talk) on 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

Well first of all you can trick people into dueling you at the Al-Kharid Dueling arena if you have the combat level as them (as long as you don't explicitly scam them) and in addition, if you are a magic pure you have a lower combat level than a "regular" with the same magic level which means it is easier to kill regulars in Fist of Guthix at the same level as you (since they have lower magic) and you can get more ranking and FOG tokens. Even if they're a higher level you may be able to defeat them since other stats don't play that much of a role when you are both using magic (which is usually the case in that minigame).--99.237.222.73 14:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
We're a wiki, so we don't have to answer why a person would like to make a pure. If you want an answer, though, then listen to myself. I created one simply because I loved the skill I'm training, and since my main account got extremely boring. It's also an achievement and something to do, whilist occupying myself with other skills when I'm not training that. I just find it really intresting, too see how it effects your combat and the reaction within the community. 17:38, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Def pure = wrong info[edit source]

When talking about hardcore def pures, it says that their max hit is 1. Even without pots, it's possible to hit 2 as long as your str bonus is 43 or higher (def pures can get it to 47).  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.130.161.83 (talk) on 14:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC).

I'm a defence pure, first I'm not "hardcore", secondly - without the effective bonuses, with a Red Topaz Machete which gives the best bonus in strength without improving attack. You hit 17's (Which are 1's now), but you can whittle the health down by using a iron dagger (p++), but this won't give any xp as far as I know since it's not you attacking. So, without pots it's not possible unless you can name the given weapon which provides a +43 bonus on Str, because (I think) there isnt one that exists, unless I've completely wasted my time. Although, I do remember hitting an 18 once. If you've got evidence or proof that an Defence pure can hit 2, then you'll need it, otherwise it's a 1(17/18). My defence level is 60, with 2 strength, 2 attack, so I'm pretty sure I'm right, but if I'm not, correct me. 17:36, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
There is - of course - no weapon that only requires 1 attack and gives a +43 Strength bonus. However, armor like Bandos gives a Strength bonus and therefore you can get a quite high Strength bonus at level 1 attack if you have the efence level required for the armor. Wikiman3 15:41, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, so it's not the wrong info, since if you go your attack up you wouldn't be an defence pure. 16:48, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
The answer to the above question is a runecrafting talisman staff, though it isnt +43  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.88.123.113 (talk) on 04:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

Umm[edit source]

This page is for discussion of the article itself and how to improve it. Stop discussing whether you think pures are good or not, it's complete spam.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JimInRS (talk) on 04:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC).

Turned compleete into complete. Void pure 16:26, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Hitpoints pure?[edit source]

Uhhh... as far as I know, it is absolutely impossible to create a hitpoints pure, probably due to the fact that you cannot level your hitpoints that high while staying at 1 in all other stats. Please, could someone edit this out along with the Summoning / Prayer pures as they are non existent. It is like saying that there is a Purple Flying Hippopotamus in Runescape. User:Mythiko97 04:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The release of Soul Wars made it possible? FredeTalk 11:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Even so, hitpoint pures are useless, no use having 99 hp if your opponent can land almost every hit and you can barely hit them.--Moneypony 08:42, December 28, 2009 (UTC)
It's just pro if you got 99hp, then your combat level would be 25.. I prefer an 99 prayer pure then, u would be combat level 15. -- Martins 14 April 10, 2012 Amsterdam.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.46.98.135 (talk) on 00:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC).

I think it a superb article[edit source]

Thank you I much enjoyed reading of all these ideas that go into making a pure :) I going to have a go make my lvl 3 quest skiller into f2p mage pure it adds another dimension to this game and I look forward to skilling in PvP then giving would-be pk-ers something to remember me by :) Perduta 02:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Account types[edit source]

It isn't explained what an "Exodus Pure" is or what he does.. I've never heard of that one. Oh, and maybe every type of pure should have an explanation for each of his stats (e.g. why 67 Attack for a Neitiznot pure and not 70).  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.167.61.215 (talk) on 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

Void Pure missing.[edit source]

I am missing the feared void pures with 42 defense :S  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.211.32.5 (talk) on 10:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC).

Besides that i think it might be better to make several pages for different pures. Like there are different pages for sapphire rings and emerald rings and ruby rings etc. Void pure 11:17, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Skillers?[edit source]

Why is there a skillers section in a combat pures article? If it was detailing the various types of pure, sure, but ... it's not. Sathe 19:00, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who is good with wiki coding[edit source]

Could they try fixing the account types section, something caused it to put the tables in a separate row instead of 3 in a row which makes it a lot harder to read.--Moneypony 08:42, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Runecrafting pures Missing[edit source]

I realize that its both a skill / combat skill pure.

But they are out there, and there becomeing more common.

With the 50 runcrafting you can get a talisman staff Which has super low attack but high str bonus (33) for lvl 1 attack.

Making it the obby maul of f2p. So why isnt the rc pure on here?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I merk bambi (talk) on 07:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

Never heard of it Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 08:11, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Account types need some work[edit source]

I tried fixing the problems below summoning pures, but I couldn't really make it work out. I'm not exactly a pro at templates and stuff, but some of the stuff is surely out of place, making it mess up. I didn't wanna mess it up worse, but if someone could look into this it would be awesome. --HaloTalk 04:23, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

The Hybrid section is HORRENDOUS[edit source]

It's such an unorganized mess with bits of information uncomfortably spread everywhere in some sort of attempt at categorizing. Does anybody have any ideas for fixing this? I don't wanna try some big reformatting without getting a little mini-census to help me out on the issue.

68.55.53.216 02:56, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Lots of changes[edit source]

I edited the Defence 10/13 sections to reference white armour, removed that redundant mess at the bottom of the Hybrid section, and cleaned up the account types mentioned as well as fixed the formatting error. And all of that on an iPhone! Lol --Megajosh2 03:57, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

  • Made improvements to most subsections in sections 2-4
  • Probably more to come since this article is messy and lacking lots of information in some places  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Megajosh2 (talk) on 03:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

LOTS of changes[edit source]

I've submitted a number of major edits over the last few days, effectively rewriting the whole Introduction and Overview sections. This was basically an attempt to give the information more structure and objectivity and make it sound less like a patchwork of opinions and biased pseudo-guides written by a bunch of 13-year-olds (sorry, it had to be said). There were considerations about the usefulness of Defence and Prayer in the overview, which I put into a new section (Commonly Suppressed Skills), also adding Constitution. If it is to stay that way, someone should add considerations towards Summoning. I don't feel predisposed for the job, as I am not a member. Possibly the Commonly Suppressed Skills section is too long, I couldn't get it shorter without feeling there was essential information missing.

If the majority of you feel that the "purez OWN!!!1!1!!1111" message doesn't come across strong enough anymore, feel free too change it back to the 13-year-olds' mess it was before. I also think that the rest of the article is badly written and far too long. Do we really need to discuss every possible Defence threshold some kid thought relevant at some stage? (While we're at it, where's Def lvl 60 for (Corrupted) Dragon?) Is it not enough to know that those combat pures that are not Def lvl 1 choose the minimum requirement of their preferred armour as a threshold for Defence? There are many other other issues, I might do some more editing, if my previous edits are excepted, but not within the next few weeks. Myrgan 21:20, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

  • The entire article is fighting between being a bunch of unorganized guides and being what it should be: an article telling you what a Combat pure actually is. And the defence levels mentioned are the most commonly picked for combat pures. Accounts solely for pking that gain 60 defence and aren't aiming for 70 aren't very common. --Megajosh2 05:20, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Okay this is written very badly! Many parts are... how should I say it... "nooby". This page shouldn't exist. This should be made from a more neutral point of view and so on. I'm not good enough on writin English, so I won't be the one makin the chances, hope someone else will.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.220.72.251 (talk) on 17:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

Destroyers?[edit source]

Sounds like a VERY new term to me... The Pandorica will open. 23:08, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a section for "destroyers" should exist. It sounds to me like someone is just trying to become famous.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.219.92.155 (talk) on 10:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC).

A character that I personally know came up with the idea, I am simply letting the rs community know about it's existence so that it can be used to balance the whole g2her thing out. GS28194 03:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think to be on the article the method has to be well known, not what some one thought of. I could make the Hot Dog method of 99 in all stats against a 10 in all stats but that ain't going on the article. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:29, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Also the source is a site that has thread/articles/ads on the right that encourage rule-breaking and this is very frowned upon here. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:31, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

The information does not have to be particularly well known, and it is not mine nor A A X A A's responsibility as to what advertisements are on the site. It is out of our control, and the whole point of a wiki is to share information publicly. GS28194 03:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok fine, but since you are not very familiar with the style of this wiki, i'll take what you put on your talk and make it fit Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:37, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the unexplained edits, I thought that it was just some idiot trying to take the advantage and not let others know about it. GS28194 03:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh man... this destroyer business is getting a bit silly now, I mean, who's ever even heard of one of those? They're just a random class with a random name that some random person originally added to this wiki to try and get famous. I really think that the sections containing information about them should be removed considering what the class actually is. The name doesn't even make any sense! Tank Destroyer, eh? Surely wearing a Black Chainbody while ranging would hinder your accuracy more than the defence bonus is worth, as even a player with the lowest of attack stats would still easily hit though it. This is such a pointless addition to the wiki and just sounds like a range hybrid with 10 defence to me. And by the way, Rune pures never wear chainbodies, even with the release of the Gravite 2H. Wells Talk HS 14:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that the 10def and chainmail part has been put through much testing and it was proven that it decreases the accuracy of the Rune Pures, even if at first it seems like an insignificant change (which is what I thought at first as well) it has been proven to be sufficient. The whole thing about Rune Pures never wearing chainbodies is false. I have seen many Rune Pures with chainmail. But the thing that has to be understood here is that it is an F2P class- there is no P2P version... at least not that I know of. The character that invented it is an F2P only character, causing this type of pure to become an initiate pure if they want to go into members worlds. There is no reason for people to stay with platebodies any longer since they're weak against the g2h's crush attack anyway. GS28194 17:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are taking RS:G way too far. It is supposed to be quite well-known, there is no point of having something that no-ones having heard of, I'm going to be bold and delete that part. bad_fetustalk 17:51, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the vandalism of this discussion. This discussion is a valuable discussion for the players of RuneScape. I will not allow this character to delete my friend's work on this class type. If it happens again I will have to report them to administration. GS28194 20:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead GS5, report us, I'm sure the administrator will appreciate you wasting his time. :) Wells Talk HS 20:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to the character that came and deleted this whole discussion. This discussion is vital, and anybody who tries to delete it is vandalizing the wiki. You are all discussing here, and that is fine, but I want this discussion to be up meaning that those deleting it will find themselves in trouble with administration. GS28194 21:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Who in hell are you to tell him off? He has every right to delete that section, since people have agreed it isn't suitable, nor has anyone ever heard of it - then he can delete it, it's a new term and since it's not well-known it sounds like a random made-up on the spot word. They may not find themselves in trouble, it may just be the article is put back into place, but since he is your friend you are defending him, think about it: Nobodys heard of the term, where as the article was perfectly written, wikians have agreed to delete the article, so should be able to. It's anyones wiki that anyone can edit. Before you yap at me, view [[Vandals|here]]. It clearly states nothing about deleting, it isn't classed as vandalizing. I per the above, never heard of it - completely new to me, therefore shouldn't stay until it's more common or well-known.

Exsibilation talk | yey for pie

16:38, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

 :: Uhm.. I think he was saying that someone removed this section on the talk page. That, of course, is against the rules per RS:DDD. Anyways, can you please be nicer to newer users? They are inexperienced, you shouldn't expect them to know how the wiki works. Thanks. bad_fetustalk 16:41, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
I was talking about the guy who came and deleted this DISCUSSION not the ARTICLE which is in DEBATE as to whether destroyers should be removed. It is still in debate and I was saying that this discussion is not to be deleted by the wiki rules and that deleting discussions is a form of vandalism. GS28194 21:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
GS please refrain from posting external links that lead to questionable sites. Thank you. Musashi X 00:56, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Needs trimming, divide into multiple articles?[edit source]

The page is waaay too long, mainly because people are trying to list all types of pures in the same article that describes what a pure is and its purpose - I think that this article should be split into 2;

"List of combat pures" (in lack of a better name for the article)

"Combat pure" (the same thing article it is now but without the huge list of combat pures)  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiman3 (talk) on 15:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC).

Def/Str pure[edit source]

Would it be feasible, and/or possible to make a Def/Str pure? As in, they can never hit you, you use obby maul?

Dragon claws detail old.png  SataniX Talk | WebsiteMeat tenderiser.png

22:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You need a low combat level for a pure, thats the whole point. Leveling defense would ruin that, so that idea is probably not very good.  Dennis2k8  22:35, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
Might work, might not. You would need a very high defence level to ensure they can almost not hit you and also a quite high Constitution level. Then, of course, you'd need at least 60 Strength.
Even if staying at level 1 Attack, you will still be able to hit 1 Defence level pures. I calucalted the combat level to be around level 50 with these stats: 50 Constitution, 60 Strength, 80 Defence and 1 Attack at which combat level there are many 1 Defence pures. But then again, they usually have a high Strength level and also 60 Attack, which means they could get the overhand in battle.
So it's hard to say for sure, someone probably has to try this out and see if it works or not.
Wikiman3 15:10, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
i have an account based on this concept. straight 40 defence and 70 strength. works for me. Yellow partyhat.png Cutwoodday HomeWoodcutting cape (t).png 22:57, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

"Imperfect combat levels"[edit source]

Many pures, not sure how much, but a large proportion of the community usually, and eventually get a Defence level, and more seldomly Attack or another by accident, or by Questing.

Zerkers may be 46 Defence, 60 Attackers may get 61 Attack, pures may more commonly get 2 Defence or higher.

Usually a single level is harmless, and in some cases such as the classic type 60 Attack Zerker, you can get a Prayer, Attack, Defence level like me and it still will be 94 combat, assuming they are 1 Summoning and completely maxed like myself.

What annoys me a little is the fact that sometimes they are neglected or separated from perfect accounts despite not having any downside, I never saw a small note of reassurement that this is a common event among pures and such and shouldn't be a worrying matter.

I saw the Zerker pure being referred to as "45 Defence pure" - Despite that, at least %30 +, at LEAST are 46, and sometimes higher.

That sounds like the pure is being rejected as a pure. For example - Zerker pures are considered 45 - 49 Defence, usually 45 or 46 but I don't see that in this article at all which was quite sad.

45 is the perfect level, but a Zerker itself is considered 45 - 49 Defence and should be stated so, not termed as a 45 Defence pure which rejects anyone above that level. The same would be said for pures with 2 Defence and such.

If somebody could add a little section dedicated to how common this is among pures, and have specific pures termed properly (Especially out of respect) for the according types.


This is coming from someone with a long and deep understanding of the Pure society, especially among Zerkers and is definitely something that should be added.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.23.153.114 (talk) on 14:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

Usually, a player doesn't keep playing on an "imperfect pure". Because of the irregularly high combat level, it loses power proportionate to that increase since they would then be up against higher levelled pures before they have the stats to take on those individuals. Musashi X 01:08, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

too big[edit source]

This article is the #2 biggest article of the Runescape wiki [1], so it should be devided in multiple sections. I suggest that the sections (Melee Pures & PKers), (Magic Pures), (Ranged Pures), (Other pures), with (Other pures) containing (Defence Pure or Tank), (Hybrid) and (Classic Pures) should be apart articles, with a short description remaining on this page, with {{Main}} linking to the main article. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:17, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

This better? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:36, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Gravite 2h and Defence[edit source]

So I looked at the maxed pures tables and saw the last two, g2h hybrids. I see that they have 40 defence. As no rune pure with g2h will pk in rune fulls (protect over g2h), why should they have 40 def? 30 def sounds much better, as adamant never protects over g2h.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duck Sauce (talk) on 08:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Untitled[edit source]

hi I just want to I typed 'tank' in the search box and it came up with the pures page, and I wasn't looking for anything to do with pures :( I was looking for PvE tanks I hope this helps and it can be sorted=)^^Ayla and Lucius 22:19, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Corrupt/ summoning tank[edit source]

maybe the maxed version of the not so commonly used corrupt/ summoning tank should be added. Stats: attack 20, strength 99, defence 75, constitution 99, prayer 31, ranged 1, magic 1, summoning 95, combat 97.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.84.85.30 (talk) on 17:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC).

Untitled[edit source]

I being a runescape player for over 8 years and pking for 5 of them, i have much experience in the field of pking. I have won and lost a dozen fortunes in the wilderness and i honestly can tell a good pker just by looking at an overall combat level and then looking at the straight levels. I was a member of the FOZ clan which was a pking clan of over 120 pures in P2P, as well as pking in F2P extensively with my friends. I am quite skilled with F2P Pking.

Generally my rule of thumb on the debate of constitution is i try to keep my constitution about 5 or so levels lower than my strength level. this insures no 1 hit KOes in a 1v1, and that you also have a slight advantage that you have some spare time to eat and the extra constitution actually proves to be a bit more of a forgiving skill.

generally, i try to set my stats up as shown (One row is the minimum, other is maximum) :

General Levels for F2P
Atk Str Def Rng Mag Pray Con
40 60 1 50 55 1 55
40 70+ 1 60+ 70+ 1 70+

Obviously the stats on the second row reflect a PKer with a combat level of 50ish.

The third row reflects a level 65+ PKer.

These stat setups are extremely effective in keeping you in the fight and hitting high.

I would also like to note that the range and magic is completely optional, as making one of these in F2P is EXTREMELY costly, time consuming, and frustrating. However, the stats are adjusted for if you increased your range and magic. A strength pure with 40 atk and 60 str will probably have only 50 HP which is a little more than a combat level less if you dont do the magic or range. Debatably, this combat level can have some pros or cons, i honestly think that if you are going to do a combination strength pure, you should use the range as it is very effective.


The advantages of Range 2hers has long since been debated over, and i have made 14 range 2h pkers and i can honestly say that they are one of the best set ups but only if you do it RIGHT. I will explain the best way to do it here in a moment.


First, i would like to point out before we begin that the best F2P pkers are made in P2P and trained in P2P.You can see the evidence in pkers that played Soul Wars that used Zeal to boost points will generally not have as high of combat levels as players who used combat to train their combat skills. this keeps the constitution low and even though it is debatable that low constitution is congruent with better pkers, it is true to say that lower constitution allows for higher combat skills and at low levels this can prove to be invaluable. P2P membership ultimately enhances the training experience and speeds up the training experience overall. I used to play GameBattles for Runescape and I can honestly say that players with lower hitpoints based around their combat level structure can actually be advantageous. However, the extremity of your hitpoints can greatly alter your success. for instance, 99 str and 10 hp is going to get you decimated most of the time. 70 str and 30 hp would be a little more ballanced and keep you alive for far more battles. and yes, i know that im only taking into consideration numbers and not the player skll or anything but you get the idea that overlly extreme or complex level setups dont work as well as simplicity in F2P.

Bottom line: if you want to make the best pker in the shortest time, purchase 1 or 2 months of membership.


Okay, so if you have your membership and are looking to make the best F2P pker, go onto your members world and first thing is complete the dwarf cannon quest. you will need about 1 mill to make the perfect PKer.500k for the cannon, 200k for food and armour, 300k for cannonballs. the quest is relatively easy and has a high yeild of potential to make you the best. naturally, spend cash on about 1k cannonballs. this should get you to around 35+ range. then, go to the rangers guild at lvl 40. train your range to atleast 60. all of this should take no more than 5 days. after the range, we move on to soul wars. carry a bow with you and weild no arrows. every single time in soul wars after a game, you want to join the team that won. if your on the team that loses, you are probably on a team full of botters which can be very annoying. the bow without arrows is to keep you from attacking anyone and gaining constitution xp. now, what you should do is calculate the number of zeal to take you from 1-40 attack, and aim to get that much zeal. this may take 2 weeks or more. after this, you want to buy a rune 2h and continue to chop chickens until you have 20 str, make sure you collect their feathers, and then after chickens move on to barbarians, and then finally go into the security lair or whatever they call the thing in barbarian village. (I know that you can use these spots to train in F2P, however in P2P NOBODY uses these spots at all. In P2P the chicken coupe in Lumbridge is 100% empty in most members worlds. same with barbarian village etc.)

Your target level for strength is 70. this will keep your HP at about 45 and i believe with these stats you will be about lvl 50. 70 str is unbelievably powerful at this level, try to rune 2h as much as possible.

Final notes:

My last Pker and a few before it had the same leveling structure done in the same fashion. they all took about a month to make and when they were finished i could hit a 300 in F2P with the range 2h double attack. I have 30 hours of F2P pking footage and after counting all the kills i had in PVP, it eventually added up to about 300+ which is astounding for F2P.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.20.225.163 (talk) on 00:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

HIGHLY unlikely[edit source]

Under the Maxed Account types most of the pures metioned would have 99summoning, which is wrong even with summoning no longer having a effect on your cb level inside the wildy, the only pures training summoning are the ones based on summoning, and I believe most of them need changes as main goal of a pure is to keep cb low as possible inside or outside of the wilderness  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.103.63.117 (talk) on 05:21, 24 November 2011(UTC).

Tanks[edit source]

I think the meaning of a pure has been changed so much that people are confusing tanks as pures.

A maxed range tank (with 99 magic and defence) is no different to a maxed melee with 99 attack, strength, defence and either 70 ranged and 99 magic OR 70 magic and 99 ranged but maxed melee is considered a main. Attack and strength are melee, the only difference is magic and ranged only use 1 skill.

 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.88.195.176 (talk) on 11:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC).

Post-EoC: Combat pures, yes or no?[edit source]

Straight to the point: Do combat pures, the subject of the article, still exist after EoC? In what capacity (-ies)? The EoC was meant to eliminate pures, and it appears that a few summoning tanks are still extolling the virtues of their purity. This article needs to be seriously looked into, I think.

 a proofreader ▸ 

09:57, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

Also all the subpages.

 a proofreader ▸ 

10:03, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

There will most likely still be some combat pures, and there will most likely be some new types of combat pures along soon. All this means really is that pures don't have that big an advantage on the playing field any more What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 10:11, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

Does skilling nullify your combat pure status?[edit source]

Say you trained a non-combat skill (other than Slayer), would it remove your status? In other words, is it discouraged for combat pures to skill? Puretppc (talk) 04:36, October 12, 2014 (UTC)