There are several issues with this sentence.
As a standalone sentence, it is ungrammatical---and probably meaningless. (There is a difference.) This can be seen by expanding the pronoun "it" to each of the possible subjects it could be referring to.
(1) The dice roll. Although the dice roll is singular, and "it" is the matching pronoun for that, it would be wrong to use it as written because there are two subjects in the sentence: the dice roll and the dice themselves. When you use a pronoun, it is generally assumed to refer to the most recently used subject---barring a broader context. When it doesn't, it leads to confusion. Here, if "it" is supposed to refer to the action of rolling the dice, then replace the pronoun with the actual action to make it clear.
Will he roll the dice, and follow the dice roll to Vegas?
But there is another problem. The dice roll can't, itself, go to Vegas---and, so, it can't be followed there. For additional clarity, the sentence would need further rephrasing:
Will he roll the dice, and follow this with a trip to Vegas?
Or, more simply and perhaps better:
Will he roll the dice and go to Vegas?
(2) The dice. This is plural, so the pronoun needs to be plural.
Will he roll the dice, and follow them to Vegas?
The sentence is now grammatically correct. However, unless it describes something taking place in a fantasy setting, what it describes is "meaningless" because the dice are not going to jump off the table and travel to Vegas---and then be followed. This is the same problem as in the first interpretation, except that, here, there is no possibility of rephrasing it in such a way that it makes sense.
But the sentence exists in a larger context. Depending on the sentence that comes before it, it could be grammatically correct:
The stolen car now leaves Boulder City, travelling northwest. Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?
In this case, because of how we process information, the pronoun "it" is assumed to refer not to the dice (or to the dice roll) but to the stolen car.
But you mention that this is a poem. Poetry has a lot more leeway than regular fiction when it comes to grammar. Many poems deliberately break rules of grammar. (I think that's where the term "poetic license" comes from.) Even if the sentence is ungrammatical, it isn't necessarily wrong. You just need to be aware of the effect you want.
A final comment. Unless the comma is needed because of how the rest of the lines of the poem are punctuated, I would remove it. It's not technically wrong, but whatever sentence you end up with would read more naturally without it. (In my "simply and perhaps better" example I didn't use a comma.)