Why are templates used?
Pretty much exactly this sort of situation: changes that can be made to a variety of creatures, rather than specifically writing up a new creature/race for each combination.
What steps would I use to make a balanced template?
This is very tricky. It would depend a lot on what you are trying to do.
In my opinion, the first thing to do is to be careful about precedent: templates are balanced by their Level Adjustment (LA), but most templates and creatures have much more LA than they should. It’s very difficult to play with more than LA +1 or LA +2, and furthermore even if someone wants to do it, it can make life very difficult for the DM.
LA leads to skewed characters, where some of their stats and abilities are too good for their level, but other stats and abilities are too weak for their level, leading to weird situations where one kind of challenge, normally something of a challenge, can be solved automatically, but another, also usually only a moderate challenge, is suicidal. That makes it pretty difficult to design challenges.
So I would aim for LA +1 templates, most likely. LA +2 only if you’re very careful. Actually, I would consider LA +0 (giving drawbacks and benefits in roughly equal measure) before LA +2.
LA +0
This template effectively changes one LA +0 race into another LA +0 race. The problem is that, for example, LA +0 races rarely if ever give +4 to an ability score, or apply a −4 penalty – and doing so can be problematic when the +4 is to something that a character relies on exclusively, or the −4 is to something the character doesn’t care about. So I’d probably recommend avoiding ability score adjustments altogether, or doing something like
+2 racial bonus to X and −2 racial penalty to Y; does not stack with racial bonuses or racial penalties from one’s actual race. If one already has a racial bonus to X, one does not receive the racial penalty to Y, and if one already has the racial penalty to Y, one does not receive the racial bonus to X.
Which is verbose and annoying, but eliminates the +4 or −4 scenarios.
Other changes should probably lean slightly towards more drawback than benefit, since you must assume that players will try to apply benefits where most useful and drawbacks where least painful. It should only be slight, however. That’s a tricky line to draw.
Skill bonuses and penalties, in the −2 to +2 range, are very safe; you can probably just hand out bonuses and penalties equally and it will be fine. Bonuses up to +4 are possible, but I’d be leery about them.
Bonus martial weapon proficiencies don’t usually matter too much, though it’s hard to imagine an appropriate drawback. They’re probably safe enough to give in very small number.
Bonuses and penalties to saving throws are pretty good, if given out equally. Characters don’t get to choose when they’re making a Fort vs. a Will save.
Bonus feats (aside from Martial Weapon Proficiency) are probably too good for an LA +0 template.
LA +1
LA +1 means that you count as a level higher than you actually are for XP, leveling up, and in theory, what sorts of foes you can face. It’s very, very difficult to write something that is worth exactly one level regardless of how many levels you actually have (i.e. LA +1/Some Class 1 all the way to LA +1/Some Class 19, for all classes); most LA +1 creatures and templates are worth not even close to a level basically all the time.
The best things that LA +1 templates can give out are things that will stack with future classes. Maybe you don’t get all the features of the Rogue class, but you do get 1d6 Sneak Attack damage. Or you get Unarmed Strike damage like a Monk, that stacks with Monk levels, but not the other features. Most classes have these kinds of “partial features” that you can give out.
Feats, particularly good feats, often work out similarly. Bonus feats are quite nice. Maybe you don’t get a free pick, but you get two pre-selected feats: that’s better (but less flexible) than what the Fighter gets.
Most published creatures and templates do not do this, however. The most common thing you see are ability score changes. These are what lead to skewed characters. I recommend avoiding these, though a few small ones (a +4, a few more +2s, only a single −2 or maybe none at all) are appropriate since the character misses out on base HP, Constitution-based HP, base saving throw bonuses, base attack bonuses, and skill ranks. Bonuses to Constitution should be common, in fact, because HP increases with level so much.
Larger skill bonuses are also appropriate, but remember that an LA +1 character basically has a −1 penalty to all his favorite skills because his skill rank maximum is 1 less than it would otherwise be (and he has one level’s worth fewer skill points). I think it would actually be a really good idea to give “free ranks” in several skills (say, 4-6, or even 8-10 if you envision the race to be for Rogues and other skill-heavy classes) to mitigate that.
LA +2
These are very hard to balance. You have to give really good stuff, without overpowering the character. Being behind two spellcasting levels, in particular, is extremely painful: if you want spellcasters to consider this, you have to give them great stuff (including, perhaps, partially progressing their spellcasting, à la some prestige classes).
Really, I recommend against these.
Most of what I said for LA +1 just goes double here. You also want unique features, stuff they couldn’t just get by not taking the template and going into classes regularly. Spell Resistance is pretty common, but SR is a double-edged sword and not really all that good. Damage Reduction is definitely better, though DR/magic will soon be close to worthless. This is going to involve some creativity on your part, I imagine. Without more details on the races in question, it’s hard for me to suggest anything.
What’s the real difference between a race and a template as it relates to what I'm trying to create?
Templates go on top of races, so you get both. With a race, you have to choose between the two. That’s the only real difference between them.
Where can I find more information on these topics?
I will have to get back to you on that; I’m not sure.
Do they occupy the "Hands" slot, preventing simultaneous use of non-weapon magical gauntlets or gloves?
No, the gauntlets are listed as weapons and no indication is ever given that they interact with the Hands slot.
I would, in most cases, treat them similarly to shields, however: single physical item, separate mechanical stats for use as a weapon and use as non-weapon equipment. This is just the same as shields, which point out that their Enhancement bonus to AC does not apply to shield bash attacks, but shields can be enhanced separately as magical weapons in their own right, in addition to their armoring properties. The rules do not specify this, however, and by RAW the two are completely independent such that you can equip both at once.
If one is wearing (Spiked) Gauntlets and holding another non-Gauntlet weapon simultaneously, must one use a move action to "draw" and switch between the Gauntlet and held non-Gauntlet weapon?
Gauntlets are explicitly listed as “Unarmed” weapons, which implies that if you drop your weapon (a Free action) and are now unarmed, but are wearing gauntlets, you should use gauntlet damage. Absolutely no need to draw anything.
Weirdly, spiked gauntlets are listed as “Light Melee” weapons, which implies that they work more like regular weapons, including the need to draw them and the inability to use another weapon while you have a spiked gauntlet equipped and “drawn,” whatever that means. Spiked gauntlets also use a separate entry that does not reference the gauntlet in any way, so we cannot equivocate the two that way. All that said, this is ridiculous; I would just treat them just as gauntlets that do piercing damage and have slightly higher base damage. After all, that’s all they actually are.
Is each Gauntlet in a pair considered a separate weapon, such that a character wearing two of them could enchant them differently? Could you wear a Gauntlet on one hand and a Spiked Gauntlet on the other?
Yes and yes. You can also use the Two-Weapon Fighting combat maneuver with them.
Are worn (Spiked) Gauntlets considered to be "wielded" or "in hand" even when you are holding additional weapons, such that enhancements like "eager" and "warning" on the gauntlet would be in effect even while holding a different weapon?
Gauntlets, yes, spiked gauntlets per the above, not-by-RAW-but-that’s-ridiculous.
I could see houseruling to prevent things like eager and warning though. Something like “any magical weapon properties of your (spiked) gauntlet are suppressed while you are using that hand to hold another magical weapon.” It’s not in the rules though.
Does the damage from standard gauntlets improve as your unarmed strike damage increases, as with the monk class feature "Unarmed Damage"?
Very ambiguous. The text of the gauntlet is as follows:
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
The question is exactly what “otherwise” refers to here. If it is just the lethal aspect of the damage, which I personally find the most grammatically sensible and the most balanced at the table, then yes, the gauntlet is literally in all ways identical to an unarmed strike, except that it deals lethal damage.
But even that leaves some concerns. For example, you cannot magically enhance your unarmed strike: if a gauntlet is in all ways identical to an unarmed strike except that it does lethal damage, does that mean you also cannot magically enhance gauntlets? Are unarmed strikes and gauntlets considered the same weapon for, e.g., Weapon Focus? Do gauntlet attacks provoke Attacks of Opportunity if you lack Improved Unarmed Strike? The term “otherwise” here is dangerously broad in scope, after all.
Another reading is that the “otherwise” refers to the entirety of the gauntlet’s statblock: the name (i.e. it is a separate weapon), the damage, and so on. This would mean that no, bonuses to/improvements of unarmed strike damage do not apply to gauntlets, Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) and Weapon Focus (gauntlet) are quite separate, and so on. But then the question becomes, “in what ways is the gauntlet like an unarmed strike? What’s left?” I can’t really think of anything.
The way I rule it is this:
I houserule it so that there is a way to magically enhance unarmed strikes, either by having the warrior be “worked on” by the crafter or by them equipping some kind of item that does it (“hand wrappings,” “gloves,” whatever).
The gauntlet and spiked gauntlet both count as an unarmed strike and work like the unarmed strike in basically every way, but the gauntlets are automatically lethal, do not provoke Attacks of Opportunity, and the spiked gauntlet’s base damage is 1d4 (this does not stack with other improvements though, so if you have 1d6 base unarmed damage, all three use 1d6). Improved Unarmed Strike also ups unarmed strike and gauntlet damage to 1d4, so the damage difference rarely comes up.
Unarmed strikes can be “dual-wielded” for Two-Weapon Fighting and you can have at least two versions of it for magically enhancing, as you would with two weapons.
I’m now going to add in that bit about eager et al. because that’s a good point. ;)
Are monks proficient in "unarmed attacks", including attacks with Gauntlets?
No, by a strict reading of the rules, monks are not proficient in Unarmed Strike, but literally everyone houserules that. Whether or not that houseruled proficiency extends to Gauntlets depends a lot on how you answer the question of “Otherwise” above, and exactly how you want your houseruled proficiency to work. Since the actual rules don‘t actually offer that proficiency we cannot judge strict RAW here.
Best Answer
Correct; except under the rules provided in the Epic Level Handbook, magic weapons are limited to a maximum of +10-equivalent-enhancement-bonus (and +5 actual Enhancement bonus).
Standard wealth guidelines would make it exceedingly difficult for a non-epic character to afford such a weapon, and the opportunity cost (other items you could not afford) would generally make it undesirable anyway. That said, note that it is possible to afford and obtain epic equipment, including epic weaponry, prior to actually becoming an epic character, if your campaign/setting/ruleset includes the epic rules (this is especially true in high-wealth campaigns, or in high-power campaigns that allow characters to abuse loopholes that generate money in excess of guidelines). So it doesn’t necessarily have to be an epic campaign per se, it just needs to use the rules from Epic Level Handbook.
There is absolutely no notion of prefixes or suffixes in 3.5; that notion was popularized primarily (as far as I know) by the computer game Diablo.1 Any number of special weapon properties may be applied to any given weapon and in any given combination (so long as they respect the +10 limit in non-epic games and any particular rules given in the special ability’s description).
For actually naming a weapon, the standard in 3.5 statblocks seems to be to use all special properties as prefixes, but with more powerful weapons it’s more of just a list than an actual attempt to give the weapon a name. For example, I doubt any of the characters would talk about a +1 flaming-burst collision eager vorpal long sword because that “name” is absurd. They probably call it the “Flaming Sword of the Wrath of God” or something. Many of Wizards’ own “Specific Weapons” work this way, particularly when supplements provided modular effects that replicated previously-unique features.
Yes, but I want to comment on a few things. First, to have any magical properties (enhancement or special abilities), it must first be masterwork, and to have any special abilities, it must first have a +1 Enhancement bonus. Many special materials (adamantine and darkwood for weapons, adamantine, darkwood, dragonhide, and mithral for armors) also require masterwork status. So while yes, you can have all of these, there are relations between them such that they actually require each other in certain cases. You are not free to take exactly which you want all the time.
Also note that a weapon can only be (meaningfully) made of one material.
Any existing weapon can have additional magical properties added to it. The cost to do so is the new value of the weapon, less the previous value of the item. For specific weapons, a bit of arithmetic is required to determine the new value; this is not actually detailed in the rules, but you can determine the value of any unique properties by subtracting the value of the item’s normal properties, and then add that value on to the value of the new base weapon.
This does not apply to masterwork status or special materials; items have to be crafted from scratch with those properties.
This is a bit unclear; if you mean finding them within the game, that depends heavily on your DM and the setting he is running. It could be anything from “buy it at this conveniently-located store” to “you will never find that item,” though I’d argue the game does not work particularly well at either extreme.
If you mean finding the rules for new special abilities, the Magic Item Compendium is the best single location, though almost every book included at least a few.
Outside of the SRD, which lists the properties from the Dungeon Master’s Guide, Epic Level Handbook, and Expanded Psionics Handbook, it is not legal to put the full stats online. That said, there are numerous community “handbooks” that list, rate, and recommend items, pointing you to the book where each may be found. I recommend Bungo's Bargain Basement, Ernir's list of necessary items, Shax’s Indispensible Haversack, and the Utility Belt, as well as any handbooks for the class you’re playing.
1 Wizards of the Coast did print a few licensed Diablo books around the time of Diablo II’s release, which coincidentally was right around the time of D&D 3rd edition’s release. I have seen commentaries that 3rd edition was (or felt like it was) influenced heavily by Diablo, but I have no evidence that these were accurate (they sound similar to the accusations that 4e is too much like an MMORPG). At any rate, these books did include a prefix and suffix system for 3rd edition (as well as for AD&D, in the first licensed book), which I’ve heard good things about, but it is not a part of the usual 3.x rules.