Again, what is your point?

How is it fair for gun bunnies to have a way to reduce their tgt#s and unfair for melee/mages/riggers/deckers to have the same advantages?

As for your campaign vs mine, that means nothing. There are very few penalties for shooters that can't be reduced one way or another. Aptitude reduces it by a single lousy point. SL2 reduces it by 2. How is the former unbalanced by the latter balanced, especially when Aptitude costs a hell of lot more (4 build points) than SL2 (3500Y and .5 essense).

And a vast majority of mages/adepts don't have cyber. What part about that is difficult to understand?

Laser Sight + Vismag do stack. So does SL2, Recoil Comp, and Ultrasound. Most benefits, other than those explicitly stated otherwise, do stack. Deal with it.

The part where you say that most mages/adepts don't have cyber. That not merely does not agree with my experience, but is diametrically opposite to it.

And this stacks with all of those benefits. Deal with it.

"So if I buy you lunch, can I…"

~J

Because SR already has so much stupid, twinkish crap that reduces player TNs. They don't need one single solitary more TN reduction, especially one that the rules say you shouldn't give out.

EDIT: Or, in keeping with the thread topic: No!

What that means is just what it says: Think about it! The only difference between Aptitude and any other rule or possible rules is that aptitude it's directly called to the gamemaster's attention... and using MitS (for instance) is not -- but using MitS without something to augment heavily cybered characters is even more unbalancing.

How about a ruthenium tail?

Yes, the elven catgirl wanted it.

The recommendation(as well as other such recommendations) in SRComp straddles the line between explicitly disallowing such options (which mostly defeats the point of printing it) and allowing the players to have free reign (as much it is possible as everything is subject to GM discretion). Notice that even cybermancy explicitly gives the GM the option to allow it in game. Any GM allowing or disallowing "Aptitude: Combat skill/Magical Skill/Computer" is exercising the explicit( as opposed to the general) option for him to allow or disallow it.

EDIT: Egad! When did I grow scales and become a dragon?!

Not if this was said by a shaman with Hidden Life from his Freed Ally Spirit.

It would be "No!", unless you mean that no one would notice an anthroform car.

You have to watch those negatives. There's nothing worse than someone rules lawyering a poorly worded GM statement.

As for Appitude (combat skill) I'd say that's for one of two situations

1: A game in which the PCs go against a squad of Possessed Regnerating Cyberzombies (hereafter known as PRCs [not to be confused with the People's Republic of China]) at least twice a run.

2: An extremely underpowered character who cannot take normal enhancments due to flaws taken for conceptual reasons.

Examples include a Aptitude (weapon) for completely mundane character with Biorejection. Especially if it is a melee weapon. Or Aptitude (conjuring) for a Psion. Since they can't controll or Banish and can only summon two types of spirits (both fairly weak) by cannon the apptitude has limited usefullness.

In the former situation, the GM should darn well allow it considering the game's power level. In the latter case, the burden of proof should be on the player to show that it is both reasonable for the characer and that it isn't unbalancing.

No, it was said by an idiot elf pistol/sword adept who wanted to be Neo. I had a bunch of spider drones (I modelled them after the spider creatures in the "Lost In Space" movie from a few years ago, under a foot wide) burn through the ceiling and attack him. Then I let him make all the rolls he wanted to fight them and otherwise ignored him while GMing for the rest of the party who were trying to figure out how to survive the Bandersnatch they knew was nearby (Epoc refused to help fight it because it was too powerful) and then escape the building.

As for the Aptitude thing, I just limit it to Specializations in most cases, and that tends to balance it enough. Only a couple of people have taken it so far.

I've had a player ask for this, in combination with the (non-canon) Improved Ability: SUT Adept Power. Can you guess what I said in response?

BTW, did you know that in SR2 Enhanced Centering (Special Skills) was a 1 pp power?

Hmm.... Special Skills... What's a Special Skill...

By now? Yes, yes they should.

The problem is that if you're going to treat it like a legal document, then you're just making it worse because it can be interpreted 12 different ways by 10 different people.

Wait, that's how it is now.

The player had finally realized that being one of six elven night one catgirls in all of Hong Kong was reducing the character's life expectancy. Especially with the Red Dragon Tong looking for her.

Of course, the physical magician offered to eliminate the catgirl's Distinctive Looks much more cheaply. But the elven catgirl didn't want to loan out her katana or go anywhere near the barrel of hair remover.

"use Centering: SUT instead."

And I have no problems with that. It's the 'as well as' bit that would be really bad.