[RickDeckard]

Not sure if this is an error or how it’s supposed to be:

P. 162 of SR5: attacker receives -2 to attack a running opponent (-4 if he’s sprinting) (attacker is stationary in this description so the -2 is not because the attacker is running, which would be another -2)

P. 190 of SR5: if a defender is running he receives a +2 to his defense pool.

This seems to not follow the logic for the other rules like shooting into melee and shooting at a defender in cover. In both those situations only the defender’s dice pool is affected, not the attacker’s. But for running. both the attacker and defender gets modifiers instead of just giving the defender another +2/+4 and eliminating the shooter’s modifier.

Am I missing something? Is it supposed to be like this?

[Reaver]

yes.

Or, at least your reading of the rules is correct.

I believe the thinking goes like this:

Hitting a moving target is harder than a stationary target (very true if you have any experience at shooting), as you have to lead the target and anticipate where the target is going so that your bullet intercepts the target.

Thus, the Defender receives a +2 DP modifier, as he is moving (the faster he is moving the bigger the bonus)

The Shooter, firing at a moving target, has a harder shot to make thus the -2 DP.

in the other two examples (cover and shooting into melee) there are different factors.

For cover. Generally the target isn't moving, but there is a large object preventing you from seeing to hitting the full target.

Think back to just about every action movie ever where they are shooting down a hallway. They are not standing out in the middle of the hallway shooting at each other (no cover). They are peaking out of doorways exposing only their head, should and arm , firing off a shot or two and ducking back in. (+4 DP to defense)

Of course, nothing saying that a defender couldn't have multiple modifiers, if the situation calls for it.

SAY:
You're on level ground, and look across a field to see an enemy security guard in a trench. He spots you, and begins sprinting down the trench he's in to get to a panic button.

Well, the Guard is across a field. (Range modifiers)
Sprinting (+4)
has partial cover from the trench (+2)

So now, to shoot that guard, you are at a negative DP of -4 (plus range modifer!)
and the Guard is +6 DP

Hope you're a good shot!

when shooting into melee....

Who is at a dis-advantage?
The defender as some guy in his face, punching kicking biting stabbing him, taking his attention up... and now someone is shooting at him! (possibly from outside his view range! Damn bullets can travel pretty friggin far!!)
Because his attention is taken up by the guy that is trying to turn his face into a meat patty, the defender is -3.

note the blurb on page 190 "shooting into melee" Its not all fun and games as there is chance you could shoot your buddy too!

[RickDeckard]

I’m not arguing the difficulty of each situation, I’m just wondering why they switched rule logic and gave the shooter a penalty in this situation when all other similar situations only provide a bonus to defender.

IRL trying to hit a moving target or a hidden target, no real difference there. Both shots are harder than shooting an uncovered stationary target. Why would the defender gain the bonus when taking cover? All he has to do is be uncover while the shooter has to make the harder shot.

Anyway, I was just confused if it was meant to be this way since it’s counter logic to the rest of the ruleset.

[Xenon]

There are situations where the defender is considered unaware of the attack and no defense test is allowed.

[penllawen]

This seems to not follow the logic for the other rules like shooting into melee and shooting at a defender in cover. In both those situations only the defender’s dice pool is affected, not the attacker’s. But for running. both the attacker and defender gets modifiers instead of just giving the defender another +2/+4 and eliminating the shooter’s modifier.

It might be because of limits.

Consider an extreme example of an attacker with 20 dice and a limit of 5. There's an 85% chance of hitting the limit. If you give them a +2 bonus, there's now a 90% chance. Give them -2, it's a 77% chance. So the effect of the penalty or bonus is significantly blunted by the limit. But if you move those +2/-2 modifiers to the defenders side - where there are no limits - then they potentially have a greater effect.

I suspect this is why "attacker has longer reach" is applied as a defender dice pool penalty, which is a little counter-intuitive but means the modifier always has its full weight regardless of the attacker's limit. The same factor might be at work here.

Equally, though, it might just be poorly considered. There's plenty of maths that doesn't make a huge amount of sense in 5e.