Talk:Slayer Codex

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

Area grouping[edit source]

I suggest that we group the monsters by area, which will make it easier to clear and keep track of. for example, all the Stronghold of security monsters should be grouped into a box, with the proper floors noted, and in the correct order based on number. -- Seren symbol.pngHeavyoak Talk Zaros symbol.png 01:16, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

I think that would work better if we made a Quick Guide section on how to go through them. I feel this is more useful as a "what is the mob next to werewolf" kind of thing Underspikey (talk) 07:23, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

I believe the easiest would be to just allow the table to be sortable, whether by location, XP, creature name, whatever. That way, if any creatures belong within the same area, they will automatically be alphabetically sorted into the "groups" mentioned here earlier.

EDIT it looks like I was successful in adding a sorting function to the table - I hope this helps, everyone! Xangelusnex (talk) 01:12, June 9, 2017 (UTC)

Ice warrior[edit source]

I suspect the Ice Warriors near the Ice Queen don't work.O3 Depleter (talk) 11:03, July 29, 2017 (UTC)

They do, as I gained my ice warrior soul from the ones there. AlexxisMary (talk) 03:45, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Rat[edit source]

Maybe I am missing something, but rats aren't slayer monsters, right? If so, they might be the only ones on the list to not be slayer monsters, which I feel could be noteworthy. My contributionsTHARKONSignatures I made 19:46, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

You're right, rats don't seem to have a Slayer Master that can assign them. That is noteworthy indeed. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 22:01, October 7, 2017 (UTC)
Just a funny side note: technically it is a Slayer assignment. It's just that there is no Slayer master that would assign it. The assignment can be found with RuneScape Bestiary API. Thingummywut (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Less than expected XP?[edit source]

I was mass dumping souls into the chest, and I saw I only got 62xp for one of them. My best guess (given the order I collected them) is that it was from the crawling hand (which is listed as 1250). Has this happened to anyone else? Would rather confirm this instead of just immediately editing. Badassiel (talk) 12:56, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

Did ye add multiple of any type of monster? It's a 75% reduction in experience, which would mean it was a 250 experience monster What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 15:16, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
We've edited the table now to include the repeat values, sorry about the earlier confusion What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 17:41, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
Best I can tell, I had not (at least not intentionally). Badassiel (talk) 20:02, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

Redundancy[edit source]

I believe that some of the information above the list of slayer monsters could be moved to the sunken pyramid article. Because it seems that the text above the list is leading in a direction, where it eventually will start explaining the same things as the Slayer Dungeon section of the Sunken pyramid article. Do people agree? 02:34, December 16, 2017 (UTC)

It's only showing the bare essentials and should reference to the Slayer Dungeon section of the Sunken Pyramid article if a more in-depth explanation is needed, because agreed, it shouldn't be redundant, but some stuff needs to be said on Slayer Codex without having to go to Sunken Pyramid. Could you explain which information is redundant, so I can make sure we're on the same page. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 19:41, December 16, 2017 (UTC)

The Pokemon Reference[edit source]

I notice in the trivia there's no point that the entire idea and system behind the slayer codex is obviously derived from Pokemon. And then I go to the edit history and see that its been added several times and removed? Why? Is there someone who just cant accept that its a clear reference to that franchise? Beastbread (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The reversions seem to be about the fact that people were claiming that the 151 monsters are the Pokémon reference, but the codex wasn't released with 151 entries, nor does it currently contain 151 entries. To me the whole codex itself is a clear enough reference with monster outlines and all, and perhaps they intentionally planned it to contain 151 monsters at some point. I think I've even heard Jmods making the same connection, and if you can find such mention, that could be used as a reference for a trivia claim. Thingummywut (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)