I'm new to using d20 modern so I may have missed something. The campaign I'm running is homebrew post-apocalyptic but that's not relevant to this question.
(Omar needs a reply post.)
In D20 modern, how does a "stick-up" work? As in, if characters are ambushed with guns pointing at them, what's to stop them (most of the time) from simply going for their own weapons? If they are higher level they'll simply shrug off the damage that -should-, in real life, be fatal at gunpoint. And even if they're lower level they may decide to take the chance.
I'm looking for either a d20 rule I missed or somebody else's house rule that would make stick-ups and gunpoint more deadly, so that when players are held up they don't fight their way out and have to use their brains instead. It should make it a coup-de-grace killshot (maybe against some kind of a reflex save) if somebody shoots you at gunpoint. Or something like that.
Any ideas or rules I missed?
thanks.
Leaderdood: *steps into highway in front of PC's, holding an assualt rifle in their direction,*
Thugs 1-6: *peak out of cover just far enough to get the PC's in their sights, ready an attack action to attack the PCs if they don't comply with Leaderdood's demands*
PC's: *Try to shoot Leaderdood, interrupted by Thugs 1-6*
Thugs 1-6: *initiate attacks on PCs*
If you give the NPC's decent shooting feats (Doubletap/Burstfire as applicable, among others like Dead Aim and Point Blank Shot [which they'll already have if they have Dt), you can get some really nasty damage on the PCs if they simply try to force their way out of the situation. Don't be afraid to give your ambushing baddies a plan B for if the PC's don't all go down in the first few seconds.
... Unless of course they're a rag-tag bunch of bandits with no real shooting skill, in which case the PC's should be allowed to call their bluff and teach them a lesson IMO.
In order to increase the lethality of guns and the value of cover, if your players are open to the change, stunt the growth of HP. Start everyone out with something like their Con score+X (where X = a number based on the HD of their class [0 for 1d6, 1 for 1d8, 2 for 1d10, and so on]. Every level thereafter, give them their Con modifier+X additional HP.
A tenth level Fast hero with 14Con ends up with 42HP. He still won't go down in a single shot... but he'll feel it. Oh, he'll feel it...
Ultimately, it's up to the stickedup to decide if the stickupper's threat is strong enough to warrent complete surrender, and heroes rarely do that.
@orion & @vega, Thanks!
I like d20 combat pretty well as it is so tampering with HP might twist that more than I'd like. I've come up with a solution I hope will work.
I've decided to say essentially that if the stick-up guy has his victim flatfooted and surprised, he gets to deliver full "massive damage" in the event of a hit. Meaning that the character will be knocked to 0 hit points unless he makes a Reflex save v.s. the stick-up artist's attack PLUS his concentration bonus. Something like that - I'm running modules on my home rules right now to tweak this exact sort of thing.
Point being that you can lurk around corners and surprise people or set up an ambush and have it work the way it ought to without amping damage in every other situation.
HOWEVER - It doesn't work if you're -in combat already-. Obviously I don't want a gimmick where you constantly hide inside boxes to pop out and say "gotcha."
Considering that the Massive Damage Threshold is so low in d20M, that's actually a pretty good house rule. Perhaps, however, there's a feat that someone would have to take in order to do that? Call it "Stick-Up Artist," or something: the ability to do massive damage against an flat-footed opponent when you use a firearm (?).
@TheRealOrion
Good idea.
Though enemies can become flatfooted in combat in other instances so what I'm thinking is that if characters are flatfooted and surprised in the first/surprise round of combat, you can do massive damage if they fail their reflex save v.s. your attack. It's treated sort of like a critical hit so that you have to reroll your attack to see if you get the massive damage.
When you take the feat, then you can add the concentration bonus, and you do massive damage on the first roll. The idea is that as a veteran stick-up artist, you'd know where to aim so that if you hit at all you'd hit vital orgams - and that your nerves would be steeled for the shot.
GREAT ADVICE, ALL!
-The Whooda
That thread really went into Suprise, Flatfooted, Held Action, and Interupts
Give Thugs1-6 an AoE weapon with secondary effect (aka MazaltovCoctail)
and see what the PCs think of 'Catch Fire DC' 3 or 4 times before they can act
burnin folks... heh.. good times
Knockout Punch
Prerequisites: Brawl, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: When making the character’s first unarmed attack against a flat-footed opponent, treat a successful attack as a critical hit. This damage is nonlethal damage.
Special: Even if the character has the ability to treat unarmed damage as lethal damage, the damage from a knockout punch is always nonlethal.
to something like
Ambusher
Prerequisites: Dead Aim, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: When making the character’s first ranged attack against a flat-footed opponent, if the character is aiming with Dead Aim, treat a successful attack as a critical hit.
I think your "Reflex save against attack plus Concentration..." rule is overcomplicating things. Just adapt the Knockout Punch feat
Knockout Punch
Prerequisites: Brawl, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: When making the character’s first unarmed attack against a flat-footed opponent, treat a successful attack as a critical hit. This damage is nonlethal damage.
Special: Even if the character has the ability to treat unarmed damage as lethal damage, the damage from a knockout punch is always nonlethal.
to something like
Ambusher
Prerequisites: Dead Aim, base attack bonus +3.
Benefit: When making the character’s first ranged attack against a flat-footed opponent, if the character is aiming with Dead Aim, treat a successful attack as a critical hit.
I'm totally on board with that. Yes.
Deadaim could be used in a few rounds into a 20-80' gunfight.
The problem with Ambush above-
is that basing it on a feat that crits the lil bit of damage from a punch
is unreasonable when used with a regular rifle (2d10).
KO Punch ~ +1d6 &str
Ambusher ~ +2d10
I say we violate the federal ban on using the skill Tactics anywhere in d20 Modern,
since we are talking about what the Attackers do to setup the event minutes/hrs before there even is an enemy.... sounds like Knowledge Tactics to me. Hows about we say...
Ambush: kTactics check
A use of tactics to setup a superior ambush prior to detection, resulting in increased effect of attack. At least 5 stationary rounds prior to detection by the enemy, each full 10 points of a kTactics roll add +4dmg to first round attacks against flatfooted opponents. Standard AideAnother may not apply, but talants may when making a single party check.
Targets of an ambush may make a free action counter kTactics roll to reduce the ambush bonus against themselves.
What are the odds of Thug1-6 taking all the prereqs to to the feat Ambush,
vs allowing all characters to get the benefits of skilled leaders: When it comes to a gunfight, Princess does what BigAl or me tell her to do. That results in princess getting the ambush benefits along with the rest of us, rather than Jimmy The Squeeler being the only one in the party that took all them feat prereqs
In theory the Intimidate skill should be sufficient for this sort of thing, but...
I've noticed that intimidation tactics against PCs tends to fail simply because the players hope to luck out. The consequences for failure need to significant-to-dire and the chance to avoid them slim-to-none if this is to cause the player to decide to back down.
Obviously some players are more cautious than others, but seriously: if a character has 50+ hp and Con 14 then his player isn't going to be worried about an attack that will deal 2d6 damage! Even 2d12 damage is no more than a moderate concern.
Sure, you can tie them down and render them helpless, but in these cases you don't really need to make an effort to threaten them anymore.
Decipher's Star Trek game included a mechanic that pretty much covered this issue: The character could elect to hold an enemy at gunpoint and take the shot later if desired. The character would first make a attack skill test and (if successful) but would delay the actual execution of the attack. If the character decided to execute the attack then he would simply roll damage: the hit would already have been determined.
This may look a lot like simply taking a delayed action, but bear in mind that both the attacker and target both know that the attack will hit. In Star Trek, players could reasonably expect their character to be incapacitated (or worse!).
The same level of threat is absent from d20 Modern.
-DF
msrd: Coup de Grace
As a full-round action, a character can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. A character can also use a ranged weapon, provided the character is adjacent to the target. The character automatically hits and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he or she still must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die.
Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening foes because it involves focused concentration and methodical action.
A character can't deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits.
Coup is an adjacent action,
and it is highly unlikely to have a target "that does not expect, and is not engaged in, a combat encounter" when the ambusher jumps out and yells "Hold-It Right There".
I would hazzard a guess that the target IS INDEED expecting a combat encounter when the target chooses to not 'hold-it'
and again, we leave Thug1-6 with ranged weapons out of the ambush,
if it requires each thug sneaking adjacentwith their 308Rifle
rather than popping up from behing their rocks/cover to be the muscle of the Hold-It yeller
The point of a stick-up is to display deadly force such that a target/victim gives up on the spot and allows you to take their wallet (or what have you). They're similar, certainly, but not exactly the same. Stick-ups almost always happen at close range--think mugging--and the only reason someone would put their hands up and surrender is because they perceive a genuine threat to their lives/safety, which is what the coup de grace actually does; it's a genuine threat to even a PC's life because of the forced Mass Dam check.
My understanding was that the OP wanted a way, in the rules, to recreate stick-ups in which the players don't just enter combat, which could be useful for many and various dramatic purposes. It seems to me, then, that that GM's responsibility now is to explain the coup de grace rules to the players and say, explicitly, "I will be using those rules from now on and they will count if you're caught flat-footed." Basically, you should explain that you're using the rules for stick-ups, for dramatic purposes, rather than as a mean way to kill their characters. Honesty is the best way to go with stuff like this.
Unless I've misunderstood the original question? That has certainly happened before.
Problem is that the game alread includes Intimidate skill for just this type of thing,
you Intimidate the opponent into not acting when you say Hold-It.
But this only works on NPCs in practice,
PLAYERS rarely play their characters with appropriate Intimidated response,
because the Player is not afraid like the Character would be.
We are again hitting the wall of mid to high level characters seeing a 9mm as 'no real threat'.
"Hold-It" implies an Or Else.... and the consecuences of not holding-it are trivial to players:
npc: "Hold-It! Dont even blink."
pc: "Cool, a fight! Hurry up and take your shot so I can kill you"
What about the guy with the shotgun?msrd: Coup de Grace
As a full-round action, a character can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. A character can also use a ranged weapon, provided the character is adjacent to the target. The character automatically hits and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he or she still must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die.
Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening foes because it involves focused concentration and methodical action.A character can't deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits.
Coup is an adjacent action,
and it is highly unlikely to have a target "that does not expect, and is not engaged in, a combat encounter" when the ambusher jumps out and yells "Hold-It Right There".
I would hazzard a guess that the target IS INDEED expecting a combat encounter when the target chooses to not 'hold-it'
1) So what if a coupe de grace is an adjacent action? Nearly all stick ups happen from within about 5-10 feet away. I am measuring from the physical body of one character to the physical body of the other. When one keeps in mind the fact that players stand anywhere within a 5 foot square (the fighting space rules) that means that nearly all stick ups happen between "adjecent" characters. Of course, sometimes people point a gun at someone and say "stick'em up" from a greater distance. But, in literature and film, when that happens the person who is being "stuck-up" usually "leaps out of the way." In other words, that situation does not tend to come attached with any great risk, at least so far as narrative tropes are concerned. Which is why the coupe de grace rules are perfect for handling this situation, precisely because they require characters to be adjacent to each other in order to enact the narrative trope of imposing great danger with a "stick'em'up" narrative.
2) Read what I said more carefully. I did not say that you "jump out and say "stick em'up" after which you ready an action to fire your weapon if the person does not do what you want. When you ready an action you freeze that action up until a moment in time as designated and defined by you. When that moment in time is about to come to pass, you instead interrupt that action to perform your readied action. You sneak up to a person, get adjecent, and then ready an action to perform a goup de grace. At this point in time your foe is unaware of you. Since you are not yet in a combat encounter, you can, at this point in time, perform a coup de grace (if the GM rules that the character is not taking any reasonable precautions, including the use of bodyguards, to prevent other character's from using the ability to perform a coup de grace). Since you can, at this point in time, perform a coupe de grace you can ready a coupe de grace action. You can choose what action triggers your readied action. In this case, you choose the trigger to be any action that is considered to be a reasonable precaution against a coupe de grace. In other words, you tell your foe "stick em up." Your foe has to stick his hands up and put himself into a helpless position. You can perform a coupe de grace against a helpless foe. The second he tries to stop himself from being helpless you can interrupt him, while he is still helpless, and perform a coupe de grace against him. Of course, this means that you must be in an adjacent square to him. Which, from the point of view of what we read in literature and see in film, is accurate. In literature and film, if a foe is too far away from a protagonist when the foe says "stick em up" the hero sticks his hands up for a moment, and then jumps behind cover to initiate a firefight. That is what hero protagonists do.
3) Of course if the DM uses this tactic he should assume that his players will try to as well. The nice benefit of this tactic is that any reasonable precaution makes someone immune to a coupe de grace. In other words, only DM fiat allows a character (NPC or otherwise), in this situation, to be the target of a coupe de grace. So, in situations where you really don't want a character to be the target of a coupe de grace you can narrate the story in such a way that that character is immune to the coupe de grace action (at least until he is rendered helpless by some other means). However, I would suggest that any DM who uses this tactic against his players does not make his NPCs immune to a similar action too often. Doing so will upset your players, as it will make your players feel like they are playing with an unfair disadvantage.
not your utopian Adjacent Yet 5-10' away variant
sry, I've been posting in regard to what the OP talked about in his posts,
not your utopian Adjacent Yet 5-10' away variant
No, you are not dealing with what the OP talked about. The OP asked:
In D20 modern, how does a "stick-up" work? As in, if characters are ambushed with guns pointing at them, what's to stop them (most of the time) from simply going for their own weapons? If they are higher level they'll simply shrug off the damage that -should-, in real life, be fatal at gunpoint. And even if they're lower level they may decide to take the chance.
I'm looking for either a d20 rule I missed or somebody else's house rule that would make stick-ups and gunpoint more deadly, so that when players are held up they don't fight their way out and have to use their brains instead. It should make it a coup-de-grace killshot (maybe against some kind of a reflex save) if somebody shoots you at gunpoint. Or something like that.
Any ideas or rules I missed?
thanks.
The answer to his question is that there is a rule he missed. One page 146 it states:
A helpless foe...is an easy target. You can sometimes approach a target who is unaware of your presence, get adjacent to him, and treat him as helpless.
It then goes on to list what situations stop you from treating a foe as helpless.
A coupe de grace can be performed against any character that is helpless and in an adjacent square. That doesn't mean that they are right next to each other. That means that the two characters are standing somewhere within two adjacent 5 foot by 5 foot squares. That means they can be anywhere from right next to each other (with a gun pressed to someones temple) or both standing at the very edge of their respective squares (resulting in them being 10 feet away from each other. The rules for a coupe de grace can be found on page 146 as well.
If you are in a square adjacent to a foe, and you are allowed to treat that foe as helpless, you can ready an action to perform a coupe de grace. The trigger will be "anything that stops that foe from being helpless." In effect, you can perform a "stick em up action" against an adjacent foe using the rules as written. First you sneak adjecent to a foe. Then you ready a coupe de grace action with the above mentioned trigger. Then you yell "stick em up." The foe can choose to stick his hands up, and remain helpless. Alternativly, the foe becomes aware of the character and can begin taking resonable precautions to avoid a coupe de grace from an adjecent character; aka, the foe can choose to begin to add his dexterity modifier to his AC by attempting to dodge incoming attacks. However, if this is what the foe chooses to do, the character gets to interupt that choice and perform their readied coupe de grace before the foe regains their dexterity modifier to AC. The OP missed this.
Since the original poster asked for any rules that allow someone to perform a "stick em' up" action, including uses of the rules as written that he may have missed, pointing out what the original poster missed is legitimately responding to the original poster. Now lets give some examples of things that the original poster did not ask: the original poster did not ask people to fraudulently claim that it is impossible to perform a stick em up action against an adjacent foe via a combination of the readied action, helpless, and coupe de grace rules; the original poster did not ask people to give personal opinions on the problem the game supposedly has in regards to PCs being immune to uses of the intimidate skill. You did both! Not that that is a problem. But if you are going to claim that someone is not responding to the original poster, and that you are, make sure you are telling the truth.
In the meantime, you still claimed that it is impossible to perform a coupe de grace action as a reaction. I have demonstrated that by the RAW your claim is in fact false.
The solution, then, is a Feat that allows you to do just that, perhaps under only limited circumstances. You could call it "Interrupter" if you wanted to simply allow the ability to Ready a Full-Round action, or "Stick-Up Artist" if you wanted to allow only Readying a Coup de Grace in the context of a stick-up. Depends on how powerful you want the feat to be.
Other than that, Dave's logic is sound. He's quoting the rules and interpreting them correctly, as far as I can see.
Point being that you can lurk around corners and surprise people or set up an ambush and have it work the way it ought to without amping damage in every other situation.
Yelling "Hold-It" kinda makes them aware you are there, and there was nothing making them 'helpless' as they walked down the street armed too the teeth. One could only assume they were armed, since the problem the OP is having is that they party opts to fight rather than opting to Hold-It.
srd: "Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity"
What, praytell, is preventing the targets from taking that AoO after the Coup'er announces himself with 'Hold-It!' ?
We cant say it is because the actually not-helpless targets are helpless... there was nothing making them helpless other than the alleged Unawares (that is blown to heck by 'Hold-It!')
Dave, you found a great way to make guys with 308 rifles run up to and kiss their targets.
I'm just figuring that 308 bullet can go farther than just the adjacent 5'sq.
Which of OP's posts did you set your blinders to Dave?
You should be asking yourself that question, in regards to your own blinders. I quoted the original posters original post, and showed exactly how my post pertained to it.
Point being that you can lurk around corners and surprise people or set up an ambush and have it work the way it ought to without amping damage in every other situation.
Yelling "Hold-It" kinda makes them aware you are there, and there was nothing making them 'helpless' as they walked down the street armed too the teeth. One could only assume they were armed, since the problem the OP is having is that they party opts to fight rather than opting to Hold-It.
Yea. There was nothing making them "helpless" as they walked down the street armed to the teeth.... except the passage that explicitly states: "A helpless foe...is an easy target. You can sometimes approach a target who is unaware of your presence, get adjacent to him, and treat him as helpless." To bad nothing following that passage says that being armed precludes others from being able to sneak up to you and treat you as helpless.
Yea, yelling "hold-it" does kinda make him aware that you are there. Too bad when you readied the action you got to treat him as helpless. Too bad you shouted "hold-it" after you were aiming at said helpless target with a readied action designed to perform a coupe de grace. Too bad if he takes any action, any movement, or any narrative transition, to become treated as a non-helpless target you get to perform that readied action before he stops being helpless.
srd: "Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity"
What, praytell, is preventing the targets from taking that AoO after the Coup'er announces himself with 'Hold-It!' ?
Nice way to cut that sentence short. It actually says, "Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of oppertunity from threatening foes because it involves focused concentration and methodical action."
Threatening foes is defined on page 138, where it says: "You threaten squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that's all squares adajcent to your position. An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. You can only make attacks of opportunity with melee weapons, never with ranged weapons."
So, a couple things potentially prevent that AoO. First of all, if the foe that you are sticking up doesn't have a melee weapon in his hand, he can not perform an attack of oppertunity. Second of all, a DM can rule that the word "generally" applies to this situation. A DM can rule that a character in a "helpless" state should not be considered "threatening," and can not make attacks until they are no longer considered helpless. I know I would rule that way. But even if a DM does not rule that way, that still means that the only person you don't want to "stick up" by this method would be someone who is in the process of wielding a melee weapon.
We cant say it is because the actually not-helpless targets are helpless... there was nothing making them helpless other than the alleged Unawares (that is blown to heck by 'Hold-It!')
Except, again, readied actions effectivly pause some aspect of the game until that trigger occures, thus allowing the readied action to occure before the trigger takes place. By reading the action before you shout "hold it" you pause that character in a state that is considered helpless. Once you yell "hold it" that character can choose to immediatly take "reasonable precautions" (page 138) to stop being "considered helpless" (page 138). Doing so, however, allows the character who yelled hold-it to immediatly perform a coup de grace before those "reasonable precautions" are taken. Once a coup de grace is readied as an action, only one of two things can happen: either the person who has a coup de grace readied against them must willingly agree to remain helpless in order to avoid suffering a coup de grace, or that person can choose to stop being helpless, thus suffering a coup de grace immediatly before they stop being helpless. I'm sorry, that is just the way the rules work.
Of course, the rules as written also don't let you ready a coup de grace because a coup de grace is a full-round action. Orion pointed that out. But if you allow the 3.5e feat that lets you perform a coup de grace as a standard action, well, then this "stick up" mechanic is still on the table.
Dave, you found a great way to make guys with 308 rifles run up to and kiss their targets.
I'm just figuring that 308 bullet can go farther than just the adjacent 5'sq.
It certainly can. But any further then that adjacent 5 foot square and this particular game chooses to follow a more cinematic approach. That means that any further then that adjacent 5 foot square and all a foe can ready is a regular attack before yelling "stick em up." Sure, if you have enough people who all ready an attack against one person, well, that is still reason for pause. But some players might opt to ignore that threat and "dive for cover"/start a gun-fight. Guess what, in films and litterature, some hero protagonists do that as well. Guess what else, that still allows every ranged combatent with a 308 rifle and some range one attack. Guess what else, not being able to perform a ranged coup de grace with a 308 rifle, and getting no extra benefit for yelling "stick em up" other then an automatic first attack with a 308 rifle, doesn't suddenly mean that a 308 bullet can not go farther than an adjacent square. Hyperbole doesn't usually make for a good argument.
In D20 modern, how does a "stick-up" work? As in, if characters are ambushed with guns pointing at them, what's to stop them (most of the time) from simply going for their own weapons? If they are higher level they'll simply shrug off the damage that -should-, in real life, be fatal at gunpoint. And even if they're lower level they may decide to take the chance.
I decided to take a fresh take on this and look at the "what's to stop them" part.
Obviously, any game mechanic/tactic that will force a player to fear for his character's life is going to have to be extremely powerful, and thus inherently broken since the PCs will want to make use of the same mechanics/tactics themselves.
But why give them a choice? Why not resolve the issue as with an Intimidation check and require the players to adhere to the result? If their characters are intimidated then the players should have sufficient role-playing skill act intimidated.
If your players can't be intimidated themselves, and won't have their characters act intimidated then the whole issue is pretty much a lost cause. Your stick-ups will simply be ambushes where the attackers get their surprise rounds and take a couple of shots at the PCs and then it all devolves into a standard combat encounter.
The only option that leaves is contriving a new rule. The Coup de Grace/Ready-action feat is a way to go. Altering the Massive Damage rules might do the trick. Makeing a special kind of Intimidate check that's aided by the presence of a gun might work. In any case, I think it'll take a house rule and a frank conversation between GM and players about why it's being brought it.
I would avoid trying to make a rule that forces the PCs to do what the NPC wants. The PCs are heroes (or at least the main characters). There are plenty of movies where a guy (good or bad) has a gun trained on him and yet he makes a move, sometimes successful sometimes not. I would create rules that discourage moving against someone with a gun trained on you (whether allowing a coup de grace, or inflicting penalties with an intimidate check), but if a PC wants to do it, let them try and either reap the benefits or suffer the consequences.
jeez I feel kinda sheepish that as the OP I haven't popped back in to check on stuff except to go "Hey great idea I'll try that."
@dwarffighter
It's not a bad idea but I find it really awkward making my players do something. I'm old friends with most of them and it's not like I can maintain the GM distance to say "hey, you just DO that, I'm telling you what you do." Any rate it's not my style. But otherwise it's just about the perfect idea, actually. *shrug*
@dave, @backstabbist
It's cool! Both ideas are good!
I'm gonna allow a coup de grace as a readied action with the feat. It's simpler and easier, and I'll run test modules on it. The feat will have a base attack bonus +1 minimum. Seems low but honestly I don't think it's hard to point a gun at somebody and have them put their hands up.
Let us know how it goes, eh?
My sense is that the OP is looking for a rational reason why his PCs shouldn't just reach for their weapons when someone points a gun at them. What we've determined, I think, is that there isn't a reason in the RAW.
The OP seems to be looking for a rational reason why his players shouldn't have their PCs reach for their weapons while held at gunpoint.
Look at it this way:
The PC is standing in front of a wall with a door in it and he needs to get to the other side. Under normal circumstances he would be able to climb the wall: this is in fact the character's primary skill. But in this particular situation his hands have been tied behind his back and he can't climb. Circumstance thus imposes restrictions on the options the player can choose for his character. The challenge now is to get through the door.
Similarly: The PC is confronted by an enemy. Under normal circumstances he would be free to engage the enemy in contact: a straight-forward way to resolve the encounter. But in this particular situation he has been intimidated by the enemy, and this places restrictions on the options the player can choose for his character. The challenge now is for the players to come up with a way to advance their own interest while complying with the enemy.
I can however understand why the OP doesn't want to take this approach. Players that are used to confrontational games tend not to enjoy having compulsions placed on their characters. Also, their characters have probably survived any number of hostile encounters previous to meeting this mugger - why should they suddenly consider him a greater threat than anything else they've dealt with?
-DF
why should they suddenly consider him a greater threat than anything else they've dealt with?
Yes, that's the question, innit? The whole point is to give the players/PCs a reason to pause when they haven't before. Intimidate doesn't give them a reason; as you say, it merely compels them. A reason is "If I don't 'freeze,' I could get killed/seriously injured," which is why you need to alter rules such that that kind of stick-up can actually kill a mid-level hero.
And Intimidate conveys such a reason IN CHARACTER.
I still think it's a bad idea to try to intimidate the players just to avoid compelling their characters. Intimidating the players through a blatant show of force is kind of dishonest. Giving the players the choice of compliance or the death of their characters is no choice at all.
I think I'd prefer something like this:
GM: Dave, as you unlock your car I'll need a Listen check.
Dave: (rolls) 17
GM: Before you know it a hand grabs you buy the scruff of the neck and yanks you off balance, forcing you down against the hood of your car. You feel cold metal as the thug puts a gun to your head. "Wallet, bitch! And the watch!"
Dave: What the hell? I'm getting mugged? I kick his ass!
GM: Here's what's going to happen: If you can beat the thug's Intimidate check with your level check then you'll have a stand-up fight. If the thug wins, he makes off with your wallet and your watch. The thug adds a +2 to his check because he's armed.
Dave: I'm armed too! My BODY is a WEAPON! I've got ALL the Combat Martial Arts feats!
GM (sighs): Fair enough. The thug gets 19 total.
If Dave passes his level check:
GM: You keep your wits about you and free yourself from the thug's grasp.
Dave: Damn right! I make him believe I'm gonna give him my wallet. Instead I back-hand him in the teeth!
GM: Rattled, the thug loosens his grip. Roll for initiative.
If Dave fails his level check:
GM: The thug runs off with your money. At least you got his description.
Dave: I damn better: He just made the List.
I don't see why the thug would have to be some sort of super-soldier or armed with weapons capable of levelling a building.
-DF
If the rules contain within them the genuine possibility that a random mugger might be able to do serious damage to a PC, then that PC is more likely to choose to stick her hands up instead of reaching for a weapon. That, I believe, is what the OP was asking for, a reason why the PCs might choose to not fight. The Intimidate check you describe prevents the PC from making that decision at all.
I also have my doubts as to whether that's how Intimidate actually works. Once you're in combat (i.e., initiating a grapple), Intimidate is a full-round action and it can potentially make your target "shaken." That's all. A -2 here and there. That's why I think what you're describing doesn't achieve the desired effect, and it doesn't seem "legal" within the RAW.
What Thug5 Thinks:
I got my gun out and he wont see me way over here... I could attempt to sneak up to him and yell Hold-It... and hope he chooses not to punch/stab me. OR, I could stay back here and yell Hold-It where he cant punch/stab me because I have a gun pointed at him and his gun is holstered.
What Thug5 Says:
"Why do I have to cover the door... I say we have Thug2 do it since he's the new guy"
In D&D 3.5 you can use a Intimidate to demoralize your opponent to render him shaken for a short time. In Modern a successful Intimidate check means you get to treat the subject as friendly for a while (about 10 min.)
The big difference is that instead of applying a penalty to the subject you apply restrictions on what actions he may take.
-DF
It's a full-round action, though, which still makes things complicated. You can't perform a full-round action in a surprise round, which is what sneaking up and mugging someone would be, and you can't perform a full-round action in the same round as a grapple, which is how you laid out your example.
No, but you can do it if you get the Initiative 
-DF
This also allows the use of intimidate as an opposed roll to grant bonuses to initiative in such situations, which I assume is the exact kind of situation you're talking about.
Hope this helps at all-Doc Out