Attack spell enchanted item

[MegaPuff75]

I'm building a character that has a lot of enchanted items, and I couldn't find out an answer either way, so I am bringing it to you people. If I had an enchanted item that is a 6 shift attack that is 6 weapon 1 attacks, could I use it against fewer than six targets without wasting power. So could I have multiple shots attack the same enemy, and if I did have 3 shots hit the same enemy would it be 3 Weapon 1 attacks or 1 Weapon 3 attack?

[citadel97501]

I think it would be fine to have it hit a single target multiple times, although I am not sure if it would be a weapon 3 vs. the target or multiple weapon 1's.  I am assuming for balance purposes the single weapon 3 attack is best since otherwise your going to get multiple accuracy bonuses to stress done, which is kind of ridiculous on a high accuracy attack. 

Lets say you hit with a shift of +3 vs. their defense, which is not that hard if you make the spell target something off like might, or a social skill.  12 stress or 6 stress which is better for the game do you think? Even if they have armor the 12 stress hit is kind of horrifying, lets say they have Inhuman Toughness that is still going to be 9 stress rather than 5. 

This also would have it work like an automatic rifle, where the damage is simply increased with the option to spray multiple targets, which sounds reasonable for a modern spell caster. 

[EdgeOfDreams]

You're talking about a spray attacks.  Spray attacks require you to split both the shifts of evocation power AND the single attack roll among the targets.  Against more than 2 targets, you're usually better off just using the AoE rules.

[ARedthorn]

According to the rules on spray attacks- it seems like what you have is a Weapon:6 attack that can spray just like an SMG... this shouldn't cost you anything extra since it doesn't cost the SMG anything extra.

But let's try both to see if it even matters anyway.
Assume your multiple attacks are handled by the spray attack rules (the only way to do it I know of in this system), meaning you roll accuracy once, and split any bonus up.
Let's also assume that you beat the target's defense by 3, and it has 4 stress boxes.

So, you could do
A) 9 stress in a single shot (weapon:6 + accuracy:3)
                                     [take-out, or a mild+moderate consequence or major consequence]
B) 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2 (weapon:1 x3, weapon:1 + accuracy:1 x3), which will fill in boxes 1-6 in a single round
                                     [take-out, or 2 mild consequences or mild+moderate (if no second mild avail)]
C) 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4 (weapon:1 x5, weapon:1 + accuracy:3), which will fill in boxes 1-6 in a single round
                                     [take-out, or a mild+moderate consequence or a major consequence]

All 3 look pretty scary... all three are likely to result in a take-out or roughly the same consequences. B)'s pretty useless next to C)...

Against an unarmored target, I'd favor C) slightly, only because it guarantees that any future hits, no matter how small, result in a consequence or take-out.

Against even Armor:1, B) and C) become pretty useless pretty fast though, since it reduces all 6 hits by one damage each.
                                     B) would only fill boxes 1-3, and C) would only fill box 3.

Seems pretty situational to me. Since flexibility is it's own kind of power, I'd say your GM would be within rights to set up a house-rule such that you have to buy that option on the EI (for a single point of it's bonus)... but until/unless he does, the RAW seems to support you getting to choose on the fly.

EDIT: admittedly, the question then becomes, do people think having split attack multi-tap a single target is ok at all? I'm not sure myself- it simultaneously seems reasonable from a simulationist's perspective... but from a gamer's perspective, it could easily end up ruining combat mechanics.

[sinker]

Seems to me that since you're using the spray attack rules then you couldn't do B or C. Spray attack allows you to split an attack between targets, not attack one target multiple times. All stress is done in one hit.

[ARedthorn]

That's pretty much what I'm asking in my edit. I tend to think of myself as more simulationist than gamer... but it's an instinct I've learned to reign in (on account of realistic rules being WAY too complicated to make a fun game). The simulationist in me likes the idea of scatter weapons working like B or C... but the gamer thinks it's a bad idea.

Still- I see no reason why the OP can't attack a single target with his EI, with it counting as a Weapon 6 (for single target), or split however many ways (up to 6) that he wants, on a case-by-case basis.

[Tedronai]

Still- I see no reason why the OP can't attack a single target with his EI, with it counting as a Weapon 6 (for single target), or split however many ways (up to 6) that he wants, on a case-by-case basis.

Except that doing so then obsoletes any single-target EI that wasn't designed with this in mind.

[MegaPuff75]

Okay what my original question was, if I had an enchanted item that was a 6 shift EI and wanted it to be a spray attack can I only use it as one setup, obviously I wouldn't use it to attack a single target because I have other EIs for that, but would I need to say at the creation of the EI that it is a 1,1,1,1,1,1 spray attack or a 2,2,2 spray attack or a 3,3 spray attack or would I simply say it is a spray attack and decide how to split it up when I fire it off.

[ARedthorn]

Again, I'd say no, you don't need to define it, on account of SMG's not needing to define it in advance... this essentially simulates a 9mm SMG, so why should it be any different.

Tedronai- I'm not suggesting that this build replace single-target EI's... I'm suggesting that they're one and the same. Your 'obsolete' single-target EI isn't obsolete, because it gains spray attack in the same breath that this gains single-attack.
Anyway- I remember something about Harry's Force Rings... him being able to blow more than one charge for extra damage at a 1-for-1 (since he pays one point of the EI's value for either). Why would this work differently? The only time I would restrict flexibility on this is when it just plain doesn't fit the descriptors of the item's function- which is the player's choice to self-restrict anyway.

[Tedronai]

By RAW, you need to define all the variables except the target.
If your group wants to houserule otherwise (as Harry's sometimes seems to have done), that's your business.

[sinker]

The way I see it is that you'd need to define it as a spray attack, however other spray attack weapons are capable of attacking a single target and deal their full weapon damage when doing so. I don't see any reason (other than some poor gamers deciding that everything is a spray attack) why a spray attack item should be any different.

Furthermore the point of a spray attack is to be flexible. If you have to define it originally as "only three targets 2,2,2" then it looses a lot of that flexibility. If you have to define it so narrowly every time then it's a waste of an item slot and simply should be disallowed.

So my thought is that if your GM is ok with the concept of spray attack enchanted items then they're probably ok with you not defining it. If they're insisting you define it then they probably aren't comfortable with the concept in the first place and you should drop it.

[Sanctaphrax]

@Tedronai: You seem confident in your interpretation of the rules, but I'm not sure why. Could you please explain?

As far as I can tell, this is one of those "make it up yourself" situations.