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.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

Jeebus. So the bad guy is flinging 2 spells in one action that each do... 19d6+40 damage?  Thats an average 106 damage. With a range from 59 to 153 damage. Did you design the encounter with the intent that this bbeg could possibly single-action instakill 2 player characters?

Super level dependent. It's a fairly reasonable level of damage output for a BBEG for a tier 3 party and kinda low against a tier 4.

Throwing out 2 9th level Disintegrates is still kinda crazy compared to the monsters in tier 4, but it wouldn’t be the most dangerous thing considering how many methods could bring a character back from dust.

Quote from ClassicCharismaCaster >>

Throwing out 2 9th level Disintegrates is still kinda crazy compared to the monsters in tier 4, but it wouldn’t be the most dangerous thing considering how many methods could bring a character back from dust.

 Tier 3 bosses generally need to be CR 20+ unless heavily supported by minions. Disintegrate is a bit of a problem because it's death at zero, but the damage is otherwise unexceptional for what it takes to actually challenge high level characters.

No. He only took the damage of one ray.

Quote from Eugel >>

Do the players have a possibility to raise the dead player back up ?

Yes I did give them the opportunity with a lower level spell. But, again as a homebrew rule, resurrection magic has a chance to fail. The campaign has been going on for years at this point and the players are happy with this. Unfortunately circumstances lead to the ritual failing and the PC staying dead.

Quote from Character77006 >>

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.

 Firstly I want to say the Nat20 rule i mentioned goes both ways as it also applies to monsters. The other end of the scale, a Nat 1, doubles damage across the board on a save.

Secondly this wasn't MY choice. The Rogue asked if he could use his reaction to dive in the way of the beam. I said because he rolled a Nat 20 I would allow it but gave him the choice of taking all of the damage, as he was throwing himself in the way, or none of the damage, reverting to his original save.

But thank you for the feedback.

Quote from WolfeCriedPup >>

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.

 Thank you for the feedback.

Yeah i have a few homebrew rules that I have had in this game since its inception and the party are OK with them. Like the nat20/Nat1 rule I have for Saves works on the enemies too as much as the PC characters.

And thank you for reading the full post and not focusing on one aspect.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

"Nat 20 which, in my game, negates the damage entirely."

All monsters have a 5% chance of saying "nope' to any player action that imposes a saving throw? Or does this only apply to players?

"twin spelled a level 9 Disintegrate at 2 players stood next to one another."

Jeebus. So the bad guy is flinging 2 spells in one action that each do... 19d6+40 damage?  Thats an average 106 damage. With a range from 59 to 153 damage. Did you design the encounter with the intent that this bbeg could possibly single-action instakill 2 player characters?

Monsters in the monster manual that can cast disintegrate are extremely rare. I dont think any of them can twin cast it. If youve been running a brutal campaign thus far, then your players would have likely built characters for such a campaign, but if you've been running your campaign somewhere around a 7 difficulty, and then suddenly dialed things up to 11, then theres not much players can do but die.

The lich is cr21 and can cast disintegrate, but as a wizard it can only cast it once per action. It also has a single level 9 slot to cast power word kill for 100 points of instant death.

You bbeg did that twice in one action. 

Was your encounter "fair"? By the rules, yes, the dm can do anything.  But i do wonder what the cr rating of your bbeg would be, given they can twin cast two 100 points of damage. And whether that challenge rating was a good fit for your party. 

As far as the rogue saving the druid thing. The reaction of the rogue tackling the druid was an on-the-spot ruling i assume? So they saved on the first disintegrate and therefore took no damage from it. Then they Secret Service style threw themselves in the line of fire to take the bullet? 

Im going to assume the rogue assumed the spell was survivable when it was not. Which, kinda goes back to a sorcerer monster manual entry that upcast and twin cast disintegrate for 100 points of damage, and whether that was appropriate for the encounter and consistent with the difficulty of the rest of the campaign.

If disintegrate reduces the target to zero, the only way to bring back the charavter is True Resurrection or Wish. Does the party have access to 9th level spells and the possibly two 25k consumed material component?

 

 This applies to enemies too. Inversely a Nat 1 on a save doubles the damage. This has come up multiple times in game both for and against the players and they are fine with this.

I will say this is the "endgame" portion of the campaign so yes all encounters from here on out are designed to be deadly. 

This was a DM created NPC with his own character sheet and items to make the fight more difficult. They had faced this boss before and had to run away when they were a lower level.

Yes that is exactly the situation. He asked if he could use his reaction to dive in front of/push the druid out the way. I said as it was a Nat20 I'd allow it.

As your point to the survivability of the spell the Rogue was at lower health due to earlier actions in the fight so I believe he knew what he was doing, hence asking to use his Evasion skill to half the damage. But if he was diving in the way he isn't really "evading" it so I said its all damage or no damage.

Finally, yes, I allowed them to attempt to resurrect the player with a lower level spells and use the components from that BUT as with all resurrection magic in my games they have a chance to fall and unfortunately this is what happened. 

Thank you for the feedback. I will definitely think on things that you have said for the future. 

If you are giving an enemy Disintegrate you are intending to kill a PC. That's just the nature of Disintegrate, since it disintegrates the body only a 9th level spell can resurrect a disintegrated creature so very very high chance of a perma-death. But if is the end-game it's usually fine to perma-kill player characters, it makes more drama and the feeling of it being a climatic conflict. As long as the player knew it was Disintegrate and had the option to undo their actions after you explained what the choice was, then it's fine. They chose to risk permadeath to save the Druid, and they lost the gamble. 

If you have more sessions planned you can have a god/devil/other creature temporarily resurrect the dead character just until the end of the campaign then their soul will be lost to that entity forever, in order to avoid having to introduce a new character so late in the campaign.

I had a character with a +21 and that 5% chance of a miss negates a great bonus.

So, in your scenario fairness is having characters that can NEVER miss? This is both impractical, and boring. If you remove the RNG from the game, you might as well just read a book, the outcome is already decided. my groups best moments have come when combat didn't go the way they expected and they had to think of unique and often hilarious ways to win the fight or get away from the danger.

I have a couple of players that always min/max their characters, and as long as they role play their chosen role (tank, DPS, support) I'll generally let it go. but when they start getting cocky and the tank wants the best DSP weapons his player can use, instead of giving it up to the character that is built for damage, I will find a way to drop him/her down a notch so all the players have a good time, not just sit at the table and watch the "min/max" show. I'll usually either have them discover the item is cursed after attuning to it, or secretly have it be sentient and of the opposite alignment so that it's powers fail when they are needed the most. 

Quote from KieranRedhead >>

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.

 I think that if the player feels OK you did the right decision. Some players like heroic actions at boss fights.

So, in your scenario fairness is having characters that can NEVER miss? 

Nope that is a wrong interpretation.   Having a great skill bonus should not be negated 5% of the time, but that is not the to say they can't fail  either.  Rolling a 1 should not be the sole roll, there should be another roll or 2 (not necessarily a d20) that needs to fail as well.

Quote from Character77006 >>

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.

DnD doesn't have many rules about special things happening on a 1 or a 20, except when it comes to attack rolls. For attack rolls, a 20 on the die always hits and a 1 always misses. I think that rule makes sense, because you should only be rolling dice if there's a meaningful chance of success or failure. You can have a +30 to your attack, but if you land a 1, it's still going to miss.

In the OP's scenario, I might have allowed the Rogue to use their Nat 20 to help the Druid, allowing advantage on the saving throw.

Anything outside of Ancient Dragons or Arch-Devils or Demon Lords will be an automatic hit, even if the character has disadvantage. To assume any warrior is so perfect that they can never miss or stumble in a fight is the definition of unfair. Now, if you play just for the mathematical precision of the constructed game, fair isn't a concept to be concerned with, I have a couple of players who would like to play that way sometimes. If you're more into the role play, no one is perfect.