Question about fairness in a unique encounter.

Ok so this is gonna be a long one...

The campaign I am running is coming to a close so that means... Boss Fights.

This past week my party faced a boss that had twin spelled a level 9 Disintegrate at 2 players stood next to one another.

One player, playing a Rogue, rolled a Nat 20 which, in my game, negates the damage entirely. The other player, a druid, wasn't so lucky.

Since the Rogue rolled a Nat 20 I allowed him to use his reaction to tackle the druid out of the way and take the hit. He tried to say that with his Evasion skill he can half the damage but I ruled that if he was going to do this it was all damage or no damage and the druid takes the hit. He agreed to take all the damage and subsequently died.

My question is... did I make the right call on it being all or nothing? I guess I'm feeling guilty because it lead to a player death but it's been replaying in my head.

Sorry for rambling.

rolled a Nat 20 which, in my game, negates the damage entirely

I feel this is problem number 1 which snowballs the other issues.  Rolling a 1 or a 20 is 10% of the potential rolls.  That should not mean an automatic anything.  Giving a 5% chance for a guaranteed hit/save is not always a decent choice like rolling a 1 should never be a guaranteed miss.  I had a character with a +21 and that 5% chance of a miss negates a great bonus.

Your all or nothing goes against the rules, and it appears at your whim.  Allowing a save roll to act as a reaction does not make a lot of sense.  Then allowing that save roll to be used as a reaction, and then not allowing a save roll seems very arbitrary.  The Thief made a successful save yet you still had him killed.

As you wrote it, you appear to be doing the exact opposite of being fair.  You went out of your way to save the druid PC and then punished the Thief.  By not letting him have a save and making him pay for the Druid's bad roll.

Did the rogue take the damage of both rays? If so, that is extremely unfair. Also, your nat 20 rule doesn't even matter in this case, since Disintegrate doesn't do any damage on a successful save. Not relevant to this matter, but still good to know.

Quote from KieranRedhead >>

 

One player, playing a Rogue, rolled a Nat 20 which, in my game, negates the damage entirely.

Isn´t that how disintegrate works anyway ? The spell description says it only does damage on a failed save.

I would grant the rogue some bonus for rolling a natural 20, but instead of having the rogue killed instead of the druid, I probably would have allowed them to share the damage between the two of them. Or just roll half of the damage against the rogue and half for the druid.
Do the players have a possibility to raise the dead player back up ?

I think that the Rogue made his decision. You said, well, you can save the Druid, but if you do, you're taking the damage. The player tried to find some way out of it, but you said that if he wanted to the save the Druid, he might have to sacrifice himself. He acted in full awareness of the repercussions. Seems fair to me.

Plus, everyone here is focusing way too much on the Nat 20 thing and not the actual question. Some people play the game their own way. I have rules I'm sure that others would think are stupid, but I don't care. It makes the game more fun for me. Don't shame someone for delving into the risk/reward of DnD. It's a freaking dice game.

Quote from KieranRedhead >>

My question is... did I make the right call on it being all or nothing? I guess I'm feeling guilty because it lead to a player death but it's been replaying in my head.

 Oddly enough, evasion only gives you half damage on effects that are save for half, it doesn't apply to effect that are save negates (disintegrate is completely negated by a successful save), so RAW it's correct. And yes, the rogue made the decision.