Just because you don't like something doesn't make it useless. Maybe to you, but certainly not in general.
Most of the monsters you deem worthless from the MM seem pretty useful to me. Some of the ones you deem mainstays or basics - such as Mongrelmen - are kind of lame in my eyes.
Deities & Demigods is nowhere near 100% useless. Personally, I liked it. There were aspects of it I didn't particularly care for (I would've liked more pantheons or more detail to the ones they had), but I still find it generally useful. It gives me enough to construct a pantheon of my own, or adjust one that I've used for a while.
The Book of Challenges is a great book. Very, very useful. I'd love to see more of its kind. Boring it isn't. It fills a very specific niche, and does it very well.
originally posted by Wolfen Priest:
However, I do wonder why, if it truly is all about $ with them, did they decide to produce so much crap lately. I mean, Dieties & Demigods was not worth buying, IMHO (which is why I didn't buy it BTW, I could tell immediately it was completely useless), that Book of Challenges seems pretty dull, the ELH did not quite live up to people's expectations (although I'm still very unclear on what those expectations actually were), and the Stronghold builder's guidebook really failed to inspire.
The problem is, you give no specific reasons as to why you think any of these are so bad, besides broad generalizations. How could you immediately tell Deities & Demigods was completely useless? Why was Book of Challenges pretty dull (what were you expecting, specifically)? Now, you could simply say that these are your opinions, and you don't want to detail them, but it's hard to discuss the matter on such terms.
originally posted by Sir Edgar:
For some people, this statement itself could be considered provocative and rude, especially to the people at the r.g.f.d., rpg.net, or WOTC boards.
Maybe, but he wasn't posting at those places. He happens to be a moderator here, not there. And this place is definitely more polite than those other places. Being combative right out of the box is a good way to be placed on a lot of "ignore" lists.
originally posted by Sir Edgar:
I think you misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is that even if they just took the basic CONTENT of previous editions and put them in 3e rules, they would have still had a better product than what they're putting out right now.
I disagree. This is my opinion, as that was yours. Neither is objectively provable. A lot of that earlier content was lousy - in my opinion, of course.
Choker, Cloaker, Digester, Breath Drinker, Dark Clutcher, Deathbringer - All these names seem much more evocative than any of these: Aerial Servant, Brownie, Hippocampus, Kelpie, Leprechaun, Mongrelman, Nereid, Spriggan, Yeti.
Grazzt - I believe the Cloaker first appeared in A2 - Secret of the Slavers Stockade.