Started taking a look back at the last five issues I have of Dragon, 339-336 and ahead to the next one I await in the mail, 340 and something has really started to annoy me.
The Ecology section.
With 340, that will be six straight months of non-core creatures, 5 of which are from the MMII. Does Paizo have an overstock of this book or something? Why is Dragon continuing to shill for a book that is barely 3.5 edition? Unless I happen to own this book, which I don't, these articles, with the exception of the Spawn of Kyuss, are completely and utterly useless. They are six page advertisements for a book that's two or three years old.
I can accept the occasional article from non-core sources. I might grumble a bit, but, I can live with it. But SIX STRAIGHT ISSUES? Come on, that's a lot too much. There are a number of ways that you could make the Ecology articles useful without resorting to trying to sell more WOTC books.
Considering the large number of OGL D20 monster books out there, it would be zero problem to pick an OGC critter, publish the stat block and do an Ecology of article of that creature. IIRC, there are now THREE Tome of Horror books, all of which are OGL. Never minding any of the other publishers out there.
Another option would be to go the same route as the Spawn of Kyuss article. Give us a new critter, complete with stats and an Ecology article to go with it. Great! Unique critter that my players have never seen before. Bloody fantastic!
Please, the "advanced creature X" stat-blocks are pointless. Woopee! I have one creature, not creature type, just one critter that I can either reverse engineer to get the base critter or only use that stat-block with the article. If you're going to publish the stat block for an ecology article, at least publish the base stat-block. Otherwise, it's just another waste of space, same as the whole article.
I really enjoy the Ecology articles. They are one of my favourite parts of the magazine. They're usually chock full of goodies to torture my players with and, occasionally, have some goodies for my players as well. Please, please, stop flogging the Monster Manual 2. I didn't buy it when it was new and six months of pointless ecology articles aren't going to change my mind.
Jason -
I'm going to offer a voice of dissent here. While I agree that six months is a long stretch for them to do non-core monsters, the problem is that many (if not most) of the core monsters have already been done. I own MMII, and MMIII and FF and a whole lot of other supplements besides that no OGL company can publish anything about, because the monsters in them are not Open Game content.
As for ecologies on monsters from the Tome of Horror.... policy at Paizo is that they don't accept articles based on non-WotC books (Dragon is owned by WotC, afterall), so I can't imagine that many people query such articles. Also, this carries the same problem you mention, but in reverse.... I own precious few non WotC books (I set the bar for buying these MUCH higher) - though I can certainly understand your wish here... the spider goblin from the Creature Catalogues is a favorite of mine, and I'd submit an article on them in an instant if it were permitted.
That said, I think a lot of the reason they moved to including one stat block for the creature is to provide some of that utility for people who don't own the books. Obviously it is more useful to those of us who do own the books, but for those who don't, there is still some utility.
I understand being frustrated by non-core material. I do. But take a look at "the list" (I believe there's a link to it on the "Ecology of" thread)... you'll see that most of the really cool creatures have been done in ecology already. And some of those who haven't (Sahuagin, for example) had non-ecology articles about them.... Sahuagin had a companion article to the 2nd edition book on them, for instance.
That said, you'll note, I believe, that some very basic creatures haven't been done (I suspect because these are so very iconic that they set the bar for these particularly high)... kobold was only done recently (last June) and even Rakshasa received its treatment relatively recently. It might be more productive to go into the Article request thread (perhaps in the previously mentioned "Ecology of" thread) and suggest core creatures that aren't on the list that you'd like to see done. I am not the only would-be contributor who reads that thread, trust me, we do read and listen to article requests on here.
As for Tome of Horror creatures.... I'd love to do the Korred, or (even better, as it's not on the list) the quickling. But until the editors say that they're willing to consider those requests, I will keep my queries to official WotC material.
- Ashavan
I'm thrilled at the move away from the core creatures. Most of the critters in the Monster Manual are so steeped in D&D history that they are either already well-known or have enough material to warrant a much longer treatment than an Ecology article.
I also like the inclusion of the advanced monster, but I'd prefer if it were a variant (or in the case of 3E books, a simple 3.5 version of the creature...the conversion guide isn't usually a complete update). I dislike seeing a monster with class levels, though. The mooncalf was a great example of what I do like...an advanced monster with a specific niche and variant powers (the Omen feats).
Well, fair enough that they will not do non-wotc material. Ok, I can live with that and realistically, I do 100% understand.
I'm not really sure on the whole, "creatures have been done" schtick though. You mentioned Sahugin. True, that was done as an entire book in 2e, but, then again, that was what, ten years ago? Give or take. I'm willing to guess that there are a number of gamers out there who've never even seen the book, let alone own it. Redoing an ecology of the Sahugin would not be out of place.
Looking at that list:
http://paizo.com/dragon/messageboards/generalDiscussion/archives/ecologies4 x5du
There are a number of critters from core that could be done. Heck, look at all the new critters in the MM that haven't been done that have zero history behind them:
Arrowhawk
Darkmantle (ok, that one would suck)
Destrachan
Digester
Ethereal Filcher
Ethereal Marauder
Girillon
Grick
Gray Render
Howler
Inevitable
Krenshar
Rast
Ravid
Spider Eater
Tendriculos
Thoqqua
Tojanida
Vargoille
Xill
Ythrak
These are all critters with little or no history to them. 21 creatures that appear pretty much nowhere else other than in the MM. That's not counting updating earlier creatures to 3.5. There's no reason that some of those earlier Ecology articles could be revised.
Like I said, I can live with this happening once in a while. When 339 had a two page spread on the Hexblade, I shrugged my shoulders and moved on. It's the first time I can think of that the Class section has done a non-core class and, so long as it doesn't happen every issue, I can live with it. It's kind of interesting to read stuff from books I don't have once in a while.
But, if you look at the last year, starting with 229 to 340, you have 12 ecology articles. 5 are core creatures, 1 is a new creature never seen before (spawn of kyuss) 5 are from the MMII and 1 is from the Dragonlance book. Ok, I can understand doing a Dragonlance article in the Campaigns issue, but, gimme a break. At least the other articles gave me stuff I could use. Here I have a spread of material that is of zero use to me. None. And, guess what? I get another spread of it next month as well.
Seven out of 12 issues is way too much non-core material. It's great for those of you who own the MMII, but, then again, I'm thinking that far more people own the MM than the MMII. Just a guess.
Jason...
I'll take that as a request (as I'm sure many other contributors will) and see if any of them jump at me.
- Ashavan
Jason
You may also want to note that ecology of the inevitable is slated for the current issue.
- Ashavan
Jason
You may also want to note that ecology of the inevitable is slated for the current issue.
- Ashavan
Well it just had to be, didn't it?
GGG
Jason
You may also want to note that ecology of the inevitable is slated for the current issue.
- Ashavan
Well it just had to be, didn't it?
GGG
Inevitably.
Darkmantle (IIRC) was already done.
I can't understand how MMII is useless. Are the minor conversions really so bad?
Do we really need to hear about kobolds again?
I would rather have an interesting ecology from a VERY easy to get book than a dull one from MMI. If you want others, get some back issues.
"a lot too much" doesn't make sense.
Maybe you should buy Monster Manual 2?
--Erik
An Admantine Horror probably disintegrated his copy.
I see. So, it's perfectly acceptable to flog a book in the magazine, and when someone complains that you're shilling for it, he gets told to go out and buy the book.
Hrm, now there's customer service at its best. Subscribe to our magazine and we'll give you material you can use half the time. The other half the time, you have to go out and buy another book to make our magazine useful again.
In other words, the ecology section is just a advertising section and should be billed as such. Maybe it should be in the back of the magazine with the other ad pages. "Look here, yet another five or six page ad for a book that's three years old and not even for 3.5 edition." If you're going to constantly flog a book, howzabout one that's for a game that people actually play. Maybe we should start seeing ecologies for critters from the 2e Monstrous Manual as well.
As far as interesting goes, hrm. Yet another dark elf ripoff, a rehash race from older editions, and a moon dog?
Look, I'm not being unreasonable here. Like I said, I can live with it once in a while. But six straight months? Come on. Am I alone in thinking that that's crap?
Look, I'm not being unreasonable here. Like I said, I can live with it once in a while. But six straight months? Come on. Am I alone in thinking that that's crap?
I think you are.
How is including a creature from the MMII, even monthly, any more "advertising" than including an article for Eberron, the Forgotten Realms, Oriental Adventures, etc.?
You also mentioned your distaste for the hexblade Class Act. People have been *begging* for support for the non-core classes.
3E has been out for over 5 years now. The core stuff has been done to death. It would be a near death sentence at this point for Dragon to continue supporting only material from the three core books.
Also, if you are so opposed to non-core material, why did you suggest support for non-WOTC d20 monsters? Isn't that even more "advertising" and alienation of core fans?
I love the new approach to the Ecologies and hope they continue supporting non-core monsters as much as possible.
Friendly disagreement people.
He's expressing an opinion. We can assume, in fact, that he is not alone - even on the internet, for every person who voices an opinion there are a dozen who won't.
He's suggested some core monsters he believes would be worth taking a look at. I'm taking a look, and I'm sure other contributors will as well.
That said, the six month streak is over, as the next issue features one of the monsters he requested, the inevitable. I will, however, continue to query a number of creatures not in the core books for the reasons I've suggested above.
Oh, btw Jason.... you've criticized the monsters and ecologies done in the past several issues, and I think you've done so a little unfairly. I would not characterize the Shadar-Kai (created IIRC by Jesse Decker) as a "dark elf rip-off."
The magazines make an effort to make all content from non-core books usable. You criticize Paizo for supporting an old book, but frankly (while it's updated to 3.5) the core MM book is OLDER, and certainly most of the creatures you're asking for support of are. Believe it or not, the editors do listen, but after years of essentially purely core support, they've gotten feedback that moved them towards including non-core material. That's good, because it means they listen to feedback, and bad, because it means a great deal of the feedback they've gotten must disagree with you.
- Ashavan
^ Fair 'nuff.
Sorry, Erik Mona's comment that I should just buy the book annoyed me.
While I realize that not every article will be tailored to me (thus my comments about the Hexblade - I KNOW people want to see it, thus I'm not complaining) it was simply that so many ecology articles in a row seemed a little bit much.
As far as using OGC material, my point was that if you use that material, there is zero problem in reprinting the creature. It's OGC. But, yes, I do realize that that's not going to happen.
Again, I appologise for getting rather snide. The articles were not poorly written, and, truth be told, the article on the Spell Weaver was pretty interesting. But, from a utility point of view, they only help those who actually own the MMII. Yes, the MMI is older, I can appreciate that, but, then again, I can also be pretty sure that anyone who plays DnD OWNS that book. The same cannot be said for a book that was released for 3.0.
As I said in the very beginning of this, I am not adverse to material that is from outside of core sources. I can live with that entirely. I realize that there are many gamers out there who want articles on various points outside of the core three. Yes, I do understand that. My point, right from the outset, always was that abandoning core is perhaps not the best thing to do. That there were alternatives in presenting non-core material while making it still usable by anyone reading the magazine, not just those who happen to own a particular product.
After all, look at the great deal of backlash against the Command Points articles. DnD Minis are a popular part of the hobby. Many people own them. Yet, the articles were discontinued. Why? Because the articles only appealed to a specific group of readers and not to all. Yes, I know there are other reasons, but that is one of them. By drawing Ecology articles from non-core sources, you only appeal to those who own those books. Not everyone who reads Dragon owns every book.
Just to reiterate though, I don't expect every issue to appeal specifically to me. That would be entirely unrealistic. I do expect that the majority, or at least half, will though. I don't think that's unrealistic. Which is what got me started on this whole thing in the first place. Since I haven't actually received 340 yet, I was unaware that next month the Inevitables are being done (Oh the joys of overseas subscriptions). Thus, my biggest beef has already been addressed.
((BTW, I would just like to say that a treatment on the Inevitables would be just perfect. Thank you very much.))
To recap this rather long winded post. I have no problems with material from other sources. That's perfectly fine. I do have a problem with drawing material solely from other sources.
Is there a major issue with printing the base class stat-block in the ecologies section? I know that the kenku are published on the WOTC site, so I'm thinking that copywrite is perhaps not the problem. Is it that so many people actually own this book that its just not seen as a good idea to reprint an updated stat-block?
^ Fair 'nuff.
Jason -
I'm going to post something Wes wrote when they first made the change... hopefully it will help you see the philosophy in question.
Also, I want to make Ecologies far more useful. Like I said, the old answer was cover only creatures out of the Monster Manual, that way we’re assured that everyone knows what we’re talking about. Boring. So, now, I plan to run a stat block with every ecology, but never just in repetition from the related bestiary. Since every monster presented in every Monster Manual is the weakest version of that creature, in Ecologies I want to present the bad-asses. We’re not going to go over the top and give every monster thirty templates and ten mystic theurge levels, but between the source material and the stats we present you should be able to put together a pretty cool little encounter. For example, in the “Ecology of the Lizardfolk,” the CR 5 Swamp Stalker Chakshael (barbarian 2, fighter 2) and a handful of MM lizardfolk make a pretty good hunting or raiding party without the DM having to write a single stat.
This will, I hope, clarify Wes' thinking on the subject.
- Ashavan
Creative Director
|
A key point to remember: Dragon and Dungeon are one of the only places outside of WotC that can draw upon and build off of non-core WotC products. There are a LOT of classic and interesting monsters in not only the Monster Manual II, but the Fiend Folio, Monster Manual III, and elsewhere that are just begging for more information. Since the information in a monster ecology is, for the most part, easy to swap between editions, it makes more sense to focus on these newer monsters since the older articles are still usable.
i thought i'd read somewhere that there would be a breif stat block included with all ecology articles now, so that someone who didn't own the source could get use out a non-core monster? or am i just that senile? ;)
i thought i'd read somewhere that there would be a breif stat block included with all ecology articles now, so that someone who didn't own the source could get use out a non-core monster? or am i just that senile? ;)
They do include stat blocks. That's true. As the quote above mentions, the stat-blocks are advanced creatures.
Now, see, was that so difficult? Sorry Erik Mona for complaining about something, but, would it really have been so difficult to quote something that had already been posted as policy rather than blowing me off? Nice customer service there. Assuming that people who post here read every thread on the boards is perhaps a bit of problem.
To me, it comes down to this. If you include an advanced monster, then the articles are very useful to those who own the book and slightly useful to those who don't. If you include the stat-block of the basic critter, then the article loses a little bit of value to those who own the book, although they are still getting four or five pages of material, while those who don't own the book now have a highly useful article.
I just thought it would make sense to publish articles that are useful to everyone, rather than very useful to a smaller number of readers.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Sorry, Erik Mona's comment that I should just buy the book annoyed me.
Well, sorry.
Seriously, though, you should consider getting Monster Manual 2. It's an extremely valuable resource (even if it does have some of the lamest monsters in third edition), and should in my opinion be on the bookshelf of most DMs out there.
Back in the days of first edition, it would have been unthinkable to run the game without the original Monster Manual 2 and (to a somewhat lesser extent) Fiend Folio. MM2 is certainly more useful than "Magic of Incarnum" or any of the campaign-specific books. It really is worth a look. Honest.
Look, I agree to a certain extent that six months is a long time to consecutively push creatures from Monster Manual 2, but the idea behind Ecologies is to cover _cool_ monsters. There just aren't that many of them left to be done from the original Monster Manual, and believe me, if we start repeating Ecologies from any point in the magazine's history we're going to get a lot more nasty message board threads than just this one.
Besides, your original implication of six straight months of MM2 is specious, since the last six published ecologies are, in reverse order:
Mooncalf (MM2)
Draconian (Campaign Classic)
Spellweaver (MM2)
Shadar-Kai (Fiend Folio)
Spawn of Kyuss (MM2)
Lizardfolk (MM1)
So, of the six that caused the original complaint, only three are from the hated MM2 (which I still think you should buy), while three are from a variety of sources, including the original Monster Manual.
As others have posted, the next Ecology is for the inevitable, which is from the 3.5 Monster Manual. I would have _still_ done an inevitable Ecology back in 3.0 when they were only in the Manual of the Planes, because inevitables are interesting and lots of readers are (I assume) interested in them.
The goal is to focus on interesting monsters. Sometimes, that's going to mean critters from the core book (as in the case of lizardfolk, kraken, behir, kobold, green hag, chuul, will-o-wisp, grimlock, rakshasa, duergar, green hag, night hag, and choker--all of which we've done since the 323 relaunch), and sometimes it's going to mean creatures from other books, including Monster Manual 2.
It is not a ripoff or an attempt to get advertise to you when we cover something outside the scope of the three core books. It is rather an acknowledgement that D&D is bigger than those books, or at least that it can be at its best.
Seriously, as a DM speaking to another DM, you are severely limiting your gaming options by limiting yourself to one monster book. That's what I meant in my first post to this thread, and I stand by it.
--Erik Mona
Well, actually, I don't. After three Creature Collections, a handful of other monster books and the MMI, I just don't feel the incredible need to buy more monster books.
As far as hating the MMII goes, I don't. It's not a question of not liking a particular book. Rather, it's more of trying to get maximum value out of an article.
Having climbed down off my perch and unbunched my panties, I'm willing to entertain the idea that there is a need to branch out beyond the core. I can understand that. And, yes, there are a huge number of really cool critters in various books. I can understand that.
My point was, and still is, that six months of non-core made me a tad on the miffed side. The fact that it took six months for me to get annoyed, I think, shows that I have a fairly high tolerance for articles that aren't particularly geared to me. I fully appreciate that any given magazine that I get may have no articles that I can use or may be chock full. I understand that and I still subscribe anyway. I get the magazine because I like it. Full stop. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't get it.
My thought was, with a bit of a change, heck it's even less work for the writers since they don't have to do an advanced critter, if you include a base stat block, then the article becomes useful to everyone equally. Yes, those who own the book lose a bit, but then they also gain an updated stat block, while those who don't own the book gain a great deal of utility.
In all honesty here, I'm not trying to be unreasonable, and I don't think I'm being a prat. ((At least once I've smoothed over my feathers anyway)) If there were six months of fiction in the magazine, I imagine there would be some serious screaming. To me, these articles are like the fiction articles are to others (personally, I usually like the fiction). They are not very useful, but, with a fairly minor change, could gain a great deal of utility.
Speaking honestly, most DMs, who can use the Ecologies, tend to be the ones in their groups who own the books, or buy them the most. This has been readily established in many other places. I think it is fair to assume that this means many DMs *do* own non-Core books.
To echo your own point, you said you should get the maximum value from your D&D books- a point with which I wholeheartedly agree. If there is no support, or very little, offered for the tons of non-core books WotC offers, then readers are not gettting their maximum value from those books. Furthermore, looking at issue 341 I see that almost all of the articles require no other books than the core.
I don't think you are being unreasonable to expect the core books to be supported- you are more than correct, they should receive the bulk of the support. However, it IS unreasonable to expect that Dragon will not do it's best to support as many different readers as possible. Will every reader use every article? No chance.
Perhaps, instead of discarding the ecologies, you should purchse the MMII. I know you have stated a dislike for being bullied into buying the book, but there is a chance you are lookign at things a little differently than some of us. Instead of seeing an unfamiliar ecology and thinking, "I can't use this!They are pushing me to buy their product!" we look and say, "This is good stuff. This book may be worth picking up."
If you don't, more power to you. As the consumer, you are within your rights to do so. However, it is my view that you are being a little cynical in assuming Paizo is doing this mostly out of some drive to sell a book they don't profit from(for the most part). They may be just expanding your horizons.
|
Just wanted to respond to all the people that say, "Maybe you should buy the book."
I know I for one would love to purchase every single D&D book out there, but my current budget just doesn't allow it. I don't ask whether I want this book, I ask which of the several books I want, do I want the most. If I buy Monster Manual III, I can't buy Player's Guide to Eberron, or if I want both I have to (heaven forbid) cancel my subscription to Dragon.
Sometimes "just buy it" just doesn't work.
"Look here, yet another five or six page ad for a book that's three years old and not even for 3.5 edition."
Um, dude, what the heck are you talking about? That entire book has been updated to 3.5 Go to the D&D website and download the PDFs, they updated MM2, Fiend Folio, Deities&Demigods, Epic Level Handbook, Monsters of Faerun, and Manual of the Planes for free. Those books are not useless.
I find it funny that every rant you have pointed to "It's a 3.0 book that's not updated" yet it's been sitting on WotC's website completely updated since the first month 3.5 was released. :P
Just wanted to respond to all the people that say, "Maybe you should buy the book."
I know I for one would love to purchase every single D&D book out there, but my current budget just doesn't allow it. I don't ask whether I want this book, I ask which of the several books I want, do I want the most. If I buy Monster Manual III, I can't buy Player's Guide to Eberron, or if I want both I have to (heaven forbid) cancel my subscription to Dragon.
Sometimes "just buy it" just doesn't work.
Having D&D as the only hobby I enjoy doing, I am satisfied with the fact that I can purchase a D&D book full price with 2nd-day shipping each month. This makes me forget how unfortunate others are and I suggest you do what my friends do when they want a new D&D book. They look on eBay or used from Amazon. My friend got FRCS, originally 40 bucks, for only 18! :D
*thinks Mr. McDonald might be silent cause he realized MM2 was updated to 3.5* lol
*thinks Mr. McDonald might be silent cause he realized MM2 was updated to 3.5* lol
Nope, got silent 'cos my questions got answered.
I had a beef - that too many articles in a row were from outside the core. That was my particular beef. Since there will be some core critter featured in the near future, I'm fairly happy.
See, the point has always been, for the articles in the last six months or so to have been useful, I would need the MM II, the MM III and the Dragonlance book. I, personally, would prefer Dragon to remain close to core and do occassional articles from outside that rather than the other way around.
Apparently I'm fairly in the minority here. Heh.
Since I am not an obsessive book buyer, with Dragon being one of my primary sources of new material for my campaign, not various books from WOTC, I was voicing a concern. From the looks of things, however, I think that the trend for Dragon to cover wider elements than core is ongoing and likely to take over even more of the magazine.
I like Dragon. I always have. Whether the books are updated or not is beside the point. But, thanks for playing.
Has anyone already mentioned, that the ecology-articles fit surprisingly well to the Age of Worms Adventure Path?
I like that coincidence :-)
You really should buy MMII :-)
I wouldn't mind seeing more Ecology articles on creatures from the core Monster Manual. I run games online a lot so I always have a computer available, whereupon it's quicker for me to look something up in the SRDs than to leaf through a heavy book and lean something on it to prop the page open.
Has anyone already mentioned, that the ecology-articles fit surprisingly well to the Age of Worms Adventure Path?
I like that coincidence :-)
You really should buy MMII :-)
Alright, alright, I surrender. LOL.
Really, my beef was never with the specific book. Reading my little rant above, it does look that way though doesn't it? Honestly, my beef wasn't about anything like that. I'm sure the MMII is a very good book. My specific beef was that the articles were, IMNSHO, straying very far from core for a long time and I would like to see them wander back.
Another point to consider... Look at the Ecology articles the same way many DMs look at the adventures in Dungeon magazine: inspiration. I honestly don't think I'll ever run a Dungeon adventure in any recognisable form, but I read them every month and I'm glad to have them. I pick them apart and try to figure out why and how they work. I approach the Ecology articles in the same way... I look at what sorts of issues the Ecology article picks up, and what it doesn't bother with, and see if I can apply that to my own game. Even if I were to use one of the races for which I have an Ecology article, I'd still probably muck around with it and change things, just because that's the way I am. :-) So it doesn't really bother me if I see an article for a monster I don't own, because I can still pick it apart and analyse it and get just as much use out of it that way. :-)
Actually, I was reading a similar complaint to mine over at the EN World boards and the same thing occured to me. Instead of looking at the articles at face value, do a bit of tweaking and use them in other ways.
After all, Spell Weaver's are hardly the only critter out there who were very powerful casters that brought about their own downfall. Switch out Spell Weaver for say, Slarcian, and a lot of the goodies in that article become usable again. The stat blocks can be used as single critters when I need something a little different.
Yeah, looking at things, I can see that maybe things are not as bad as I first stated.
Although I STILL think that six straight months is too long. ;)
Thanks for everyone's responses. And thank you Erik for responding to my rants.
|
This is a specific complaint about the mooncalf ecology, but is also something I've noticed.
I don't really like ecologies where the creature has no defined origin. "They're from a very different strange place, and nobody knows why they do what they do."
That just doesn't cut it. I mean, that's what I've already got. I'd really prefer if the article will tell me why, and if I don't like it I'll just go back to the "Nobody knows" cliche response.
I agree that the monster's entry should be reprinted as an appendix to each ecology article, in place of the sample advanced creature. Not only would this help people like the OP who don't have the book, if it's a cool monster (and it should be, if it inspired an ecology) it would serve as advertising for the book. Moreover, it would allow ecology authors to stretch a little farther afield, writing about creatures from more obscure sources like the miniatures book, the psionics books, or even an adventure (whether published by WotC or in the pages of Dungeon).
You know, I can understand anyone's frustration with not finding anything they wait for once a month when it's not what they want. Some people don't get alot of mail and the magizine in the mail box is the highlight of the week. So when they don't find what they were hoping for, it can suck.
I also can understand the book cost issue. Thanis spoils me, but affording a second set of the core manuals while still being able to get food for game... wasn't going to happen.
I saved up and got lucky. Someone (Why... I don't know) sold all kinds of 3.0 and 3.5 books to a local used book store, practically new with no signs of wear. If it wasn't for that one strange person I would not have my own copies and our group would still being waiting in line to "pass the book" come level up time. (how many people can say they got the entire core set like new for the cost of just the PHB?)