OOTS #1298 - The Discussion Thread

[fuschiawarrior]

Knife sounds more painful, especially if it's used by not dumb animal but a smart one like Calder the dragon.

Both Elan and Roy survived this same greatsword stabbing through multiple of their internal organs possibly including their hearts. Why would it be different for Bloodfeast? Is his HP so much lower than Elan at full hit points?

I can see a scenario where Calder kills Bloodfeast with his claws, breath weapon and magic not so much with Roy's Greatsword and even more likely that Calder dominates Bloodfeast in some way to use him against the order.

[Kardwill]

You guys do remember we’re talking about dragon claws which are about the size of a sword each, right?

Well, Calder's claws look like they are more dagger-sized.

Which is still a terrifying amount of glorified fingernail, especially with the weight and the muscle of a dragon behind them.

[danielxcutter]

Also arbitrarily combining game mechanics and IRL physics is how we get silliness like the Peasant Railgun.

[Provengreil]

The hostess of your party serves Sorcerer Fruit Pies? How do I wrangle an invite?



Sure. 2d6 Great sword beats wing, wing, tail, claw, claw.

Am I the first to consider that it is just as likely that he stabbed himself as it is that he stabbed Bloodfeast? He was not holding it as a ready weapon, even if he is proficient.

No, that realization is sprinkled up and down the thread, but no one responds to it.

[Peelee]

Also arbitrarily combining game mechanics and IRL physics is how we get silliness like the Peasant Railgun.

Excuse me, the in-universe mechanics of Teleport is not silliness.

[HalfTangible]

Or... V uses the same spell used in the past to prevent this: Disintegrate, followed by gust of wind. Or... you know, maybe have Sunny use eye #8 on the corpse (and another gust of wind to push the ashes into the green colored water below).

Assuming the Order does win the fight and Calder is killed, it's extremely unlikely that they will leave a body around for TE to find and use in any meanginful way. The Order has a couple days of time to prep for TE to arrive (and know this fact). They also know that Xykon likes to make zombified dragons, so it's kinda of an obvious move.

Now... I could see Calder starting to lose and fleeing into the dungeon, running wild and triggering a ton of traps and releasing a bunch of monsters, and perhaps forcing the Order to head of towards the gate room without being able to deal with that mess (which could make TE's arrival "interesting"). Heck. Calder could surrender (again) to them, and then maybe agree to help defend the gate in return for freedom later maybe. Dunno. I could see lots of other possible things that could happen here. But yeah, not seeing any route that results in a Calder corpse lying around for TE to use after the fact (well, unless he runs back towards the entrance, the Order decides not to chase him, and then he dies to something along the way maybe). But that's not much different than if he does that and doesn't die.

And that's covered by 'empty room'. With the giant magical imprisonment circle.

[gbaji]

And that's covered by 'empty room'. With the giant magical imprisonment circle.

Hmmm... Is the imprisonment/stasis circle still active? Normally, magic is just suspended when it's hit by an AMF. We see Sunny pointing his big eye at a portion of the circle here, which is presumably what allowed Calder to move around and attack. But now Sunny is pointing it up and towards Calder's chest. Is the circle still inactive? Is it inactive as long as any part of the AMF points into any area within the circle? Or does it now count as having been "triggered" and it's turned off entirely now? There are some "interesting" possibilities that could happen here.

But, regardless of those possibilities, the fact that Calder can move around (as wel as least two of the party who are within the circle themselves now), should mean that the circle is not currently active, meaning Calder can freely move out of it if he wishes. So far it looks as though he's remained within it, and most of the party is staying outside (note the specific edge of the circle drawn in panel 7 of this strip), so there is the potential of simply re-trapping him inside. But at least with what's currently going on, I see no reason why he couldn't simply fly out of the room if he really wanted to (though the doorway might be a squeeze for him).

[Canisius]

This is definitely in my top 5 strips so far.

One nice thing about a serialized comic is that the tension builds for a lot longer than if you're flipping through a comic book. I saw the red dragon and though "holy crap, if this is an encounter that's supposed to stop epics like Xykon's team then there's no way our heroes could manage it, except by a Deus ex Machina".

No deus needed, when you have a Lacertus in Sacculo.

[bunsen_h]

You guys do remember we’re talking about dragon claws which are about the size of a sword each, right?

And of which Calder has 4 or 5 pointy bits on each "paw"/"hand". There would be multiple slashes/gouges per strike, just as we see with Bloodfeast's rake and bite in that last big panel.

[gbaji]

And of which Calder has 4 or 5 pointy bits on each "paw"/"hand". There would be multiple slashes/gouges per strike, just as we see with Bloodfeast's rake and bite in that last big panel.

Setting aside numbers of claws on each er... claw/hand/whatever. A human is medium sized, so a greatsword (sized for a human anyway) does 2d6.

That's the same damage a huge sized dragon does with a claw attack, and less than what a gargantuan sized dragon does. Since the debate seems to be whether Calder is huge or garguntuan, then we are already sitting at a point where the worst case damage he can do with a claw attack is equal to what he would theoretically do with Roy's greatsword. He's in the middle of an AMF, so the +5 on the weapon doesn't count.

Additionally, it's reasonable to assume that Calder has significant proficiency using his claws, while likely not with greatsword. Additionally, we might rule that the akwardness of holding a greatsword would preclude any additional strength damage being done, while he does get that with his claws (half I believe).

So while artistically interesting, the reality is that other than maybe an "oops, bloodfeast impaled himself on the greatsword for an insignificant amount of damage" gag, it's not ever going to be a valid tactic that would be worth actually doing, especially if it was a combat action Calder would have to use in lieu of using one of his natural attacks. His natural attacks have a higher chance to hit, and will do more damage. To me, the far more significant effect of him snatching Roy's sword is simply denying Roy from being able to use it himself.

[bunsen_h]

So while artistically interesting, the reality is that other than maybe an "oops, bloodfeast impaled himself on the greatsword for an insignificant amount of damage" gag, it's not ever going to be a valid tactic that would be worth actually doing, especially if it was a combat action Calder would have to use in lieu of using one of his natural attacks. His natural attacks have a higher chance to hit, and will do more damage. To me, the far more significant effect of him snatching Roy's sword is simply denying Roy from being able to use it himself.

Roy can presumably not PWOK! his sword back while it's in the antimagic field. If we assume that Roy could, ordinarily, recover it while another person was holding it by its blade (as Calder is doing), would that work if Calder was holding it outside the AMF while his body was still centred within the AMF? In other words, does the effect of the AMF extend beyond the limits of that delineated cone because parts of Calder himself do?

[brian 333]

Roy can presumably not PWOK! his sword back while it's in the antimagic field. If we assume that Roy could, ordinarily, recover it while another person was holding it by its blade (as Calder is doing), would that work if Calder was holding it outside the AMF while his body was still centred within the AMF? In other words, does the effect of the AMF extend beyond the limits of that delineated cone because parts of Calder himself do?

Calder is in the AMF, so if he has an active buff spell or magic item on his person it is currently turned off. Suppose he has a magic item which grants a +5 Enhancement Bonus to Natural Weapons Attacks. It will not grant its bonus if Calder attacks with his tail, which is outside the AMF, even if the item is worn on his tail. If he had a kobold riding on his tail wielding magic repeating crossbows, the kobold and his magic items would be fine.

[bunsen_h]

Calder is in the AMF, so if he has an active buff spell or magic item on his person it is currently turned off. Suppose he has a magic item which grants a +5 Enhancement Bonus to Natural Weapons Attacks. It will not grant its bonus if Calder attacks with his tail, which is outside the AMF, even if the item is worn on his tail. If he had a kobold riding on his tail wielding magic repeating crossbows, the kobold and his magic items would be fine.

Ah. So if the Greenhilt Sword becomes a person — sentient — Calder might not be able to hold it.

[KorvinStarmast]

So if the Greenhilt Sword becomes a person — sentient — Calder might not be able to hold it.

Why would it do that?
I don't see how the sword, which we witnessed being reforged in Azure City, is a person rather than an object. Are you stipulating that a weapon of legacy has the sentient property?

[gbaji]

Ah. So if the Greenhilt Sword becomes a person — sentient — Calder might not be able to hold it.

I don't think whether it's sentient or not is relevant to the question: "Can Roy PWOK! his sword back to himself?" (and yes, admittedly, the answer involving a kobold riding on the dragon outside of the AMF was equally non-relevant as well).

Magic can take effect outside an AMF normally. So, if we assume that Roy could normally PWOK! his sword to himself even if it was currently being held by someone else (IMO, a reasonable assumption), then he can do that as long as both the sword and himself are outside the AMF. Where the dragon is, and what percentage of the dragon is inside or outside the area of the AMF is completely irrelevant to that consideration.

[KorvinStarmast]

.... the answer involving a kobold riding on the dragon outside of the AMF was equally non-relevant as well).

Tucker hasn't released him from his contract, for one ...

Where the dragon is, and what percentage of the dragon is inside or outside the area of the AMF is completely irrelevant to that consideration.

The dragon can move somewhat, can't he? Or has he mostly been hovering?

[brian 333]

I don't think whether it's sentient or not is relevant to the question: "Can Roy PWOK! his sword back to himself?" (and yes, admittedly, the answer involving a kobold riding on the dragon outside of the AMF was equally non-relevant as well).

Magic can take effect outside an AMF normally. So, if we assume that Roy could normally PWOK! his sword to himself even if it was currently being held by someone else (IMO, a reasonable assumption), then he can do that as long as both the sword and himself are outside the AMF. Where the dragon is, and what percentage of the dragon is inside or outside the area of the AMF is completely irrelevant to that consideration.

It is indeed relevant. If a character is in whole or in part inside an AMF, all magical effects are turned off for that character. Assume a character bound by chains to a wall who is partially within an AMF, who wears a ring of Escape Artist Skill Bonus on a hand outside that AMF. Does he gain the bonus to escape or not?

As in the specific example I cited, if Calder has magic which improves his attack or damage rolls, even though his tail tip is not in the AMF, a tail attack would not gain the bonuses that magic offers.

On the other hand, an AoE spell might affect the parts of the body outside the AMF, and magical protections against that attack would not apply, (though Cover Rules might be an issue.)

[gbaji]

It is indeed relevant. If a character is in whole or in part inside an AMF, all magical effects are turned off for that character. Assume a character bound by chains to a wall who is partially within an AMF, who wears a ring of Escape Artist Skill Bonus on a hand outside that AMF. Does he gain the bonus to escape or not?

Right. But that's not what was asked. The sword is not part of the dragon. Roy's ability to PWOK! the Sword has zero relevance to which parts of the dragon are inside or outside of the AMF. Only whether the sword is inside our outside the AMF matters (well, and Roy, of course).

Roy is not trying to affect the dragon with his ability to retreive his sword. He's only affecting the sword.

As in the specific example I cited, if Calder has magic which improves his attack or damage rolls, even though his tail tip is not in the AMF, a tail attack would not gain the bonuses that magic offers.

On the other hand, an AoE spell might affect the parts of the body outside the AMF, and magical protections against that attack would not apply, (though Cover Rules might be an issue.)

Which is all great information about how an AMF works, but not the actual question which was asked, and to which you replied:

If we assume that Roy could, ordinarily, recover it while another person was holding it by its blade (as Calder is doing), would that work if Calder was holding it outside the AMF while his body was still centred within the AMF? In other words, does the effect of the AMF extend beyond the limits of that delineated cone because parts of Calder himself do?

He's literally asking if, when someone is only partially within an AMF, that area is considered to be "extended" to cover the entirety of that someone (in this case a dragon), or not.

The answer is: Not.

Ergo, as long as the sword is outside of the AMF, Roy can PWOK! it, even if Calder is holding it, while most of the rest of him is inside the AMF. Bunsen clearly wasn't sure if, when a creature is partially inside an AMF, whether the effect of the AMF basically stretched around the entire creature (which might affect Roy's ability to retrieve his sword). It was a legitimate question to ask, since some game systems might just say something like "if any part of you is inside the effect, you are treated as if all of you is inside it", in which case an argument could be made that this includes any objects worn or held by you as well.

D&D rules on AMF do not allow the creature inside the AMF to be targetted by spells, but can be affected by AE spell effects on the parts of the creature that are outside the AMF (usually damage effects). Which gives us a strong clue as to the correct answer in this case.

[elecampane]

It is indeed relevant. If a character is in whole or in part inside an AMF, all magical effects are turned off for that character. Assume a character bound by chains to a wall who is partially within an AMF, who wears a ring of Escape Artist Skill Bonus on a hand outside that AMF. Does he gain the bonus to escape or not?

As in the specific example I cited, if Calder has magic which improves his attack or damage rolls, even though his tail tip is not in the AMF, a tail attack would not gain the bonuses that magic offers.

On the other hand, an AoE spell might affect the parts of the body outside the AMF, and magical protections against that attack would not apply, (though Cover Rules might be an issue.)

I dunno...
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm

Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field.

I would rule that if someone'd casted Magic Fang on Calder's left frontal claw, if the claw was outside the AMF, it would receive the bonus.

Ah. So if the Greenhilt Sword becomes a person — sentient — Calder might not be able to hold it.

Not unless it becomes either a construct (and it would still lose magical bonuses and abilities), or an artifact (and thus unaffected by mortal magic). TBH Durkon's Thor's hammer could've been an artifact, but sadly, we already know it's not.

[brian 333]

...In other words, does the effect of the AMF extend beyond the limits of that delineated cone because parts of Calder himself do?

Right. But that's not what was asked.

The above is literally what I answered.

The sword is not part of the dragon. Roy's ability to PWOK! the Sword has zero relevance to which parts of the dragon are inside or outside of the AMF. Only whether the sword is inside our outside the AMF matters (well, and Roy, of course).

This was exactly my point about the kobold on his tail. We agree.

D&D rules on AMF do not allow the creature inside the AMF to be targetted by spells, but can be affected by AE spell effects on the parts of the creature that are outside the AMF (usually damage effects). Which gives us a strong clue as to the correct answer in this case.

Again, this is my exact point. I apologize; when I first read your reply I thought we disagreed.

I would rule that if someone'd casted Magic Fang on Calder's left frontal claw, if the claw was outside the AMF, it would receive the bonus.

Since Magic Fang affects a creature, not a claw, it would cease to operate as long as some of Calder is within an AMF.

[F.Harr]

Yeah, Elan! Get with the now!

[elecampane]

Since Magic Fang affects a creature, not a claw, it would cease to operate as long as some of Calder is within an AMF.

It tagerts the creature, but affects only the weapon. Literally says that

The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon.

Where do you even get this reading of the rules? Is this your own, or did I miss some sage advice or something?

[Kardwill]

Can we agree upon the fact that it will depend a lot on the DM's ruling? ^^
To adjucate how the rules apply to edge cases is one of the roles of the GM, after all. Different tables play things out differently, without any of them really being "wrong"

[gbaji]

This was exactly my point about the kobold on his tail. We agree.

If that was your intended meaning, then you stepped on your own answer:

Calder is in the AMF, so if he has an active buff spell or magic item on his person it is currently turned off. Suppose he has a magic item which grants a +5 Enhancement Bonus to Natural Weapons Attacks. It will not grant its bonus if Calder attacks with his tail, which is outside the AMF, even if the item is worn on his tail. If he had a kobold riding on his tail wielding magic repeating crossbows, the kobold and his magic items would be fine.

The part I bolded is you talking about an item in Calder's possession. In this case, you specifically said that it would not function even if the item was outside the AMF and the attack it is applying a bonus to is also outside the AMF. Which, in response to Bunsen's question, would suggest that AMF does, in fact, extend to cover the entire creature with regard to magic items worn/held by said creature.

You then contrasted that to a kobold riding on the dragon's tail, and that kobold and items it was holding not being affected.

Which is precisely why bunsen made the response about Roy's sword being sentient being the key difference, since your response made that seem to be the actual difference (magic item on the dragon's tail is considered to be in the AMF, while a seperate sentient creature riding on the same tail is not). But the actual difference isn't about the source of the magic, but the target of the magic. The ring on Calder's tail doesn't boost Calder, despite being ouside the AMF because Calder is inside the AMF. The Kobold riding on Calder's tail is just as unable to cast an enhancement spell on Calder as the ring. Both are treated exactly the same if they are doing the same thing.


Your response was correct, but not actually relevant to the question, which was about whether the sword could be affected by magic, if it was held outside of an AMF by a creature that is otherwise within the AMF.

The answer is: Yes. That ring you mentioned above? If someone cast disjunction, it would be affected and could be destroyed, even though it's being worn by a creature that is inside an AMF, since it's physically located outside that AMF. You responded by talking about whether the ring could affect Calder, but the question was about whether magic outside the AMF could affect the ring.

One could even argue that magic items on a creature inside an AMF can generate effects outside the AMF if the item is not in the AMF. I'd rule that the creature within could not activate or cast/use the item (the creature is in the AMF), but if you had some item that had some kind of permanent or continuous effect, and you were inside an AMF, you could affect folks with that affect by holding the item outside the area of the AMF (which is an interesting, if rare, potential use of such things).

A simple example would be a magic lantern that simply glows magically all the time. Inside an AMF, it goes dark. You extend your arm and hold the lantern outside the AMF, and it will glow again. It has nothing at all to do with the item being sentient, nor who is holding it. It's the magic itself, and what it does, and who it affects. Items and creatures inside the AMF can't generate magic effects. Magic effects generated outside the AMF can't affect anything inside. The more interesting question in this example is "does the light generated by the lantern illuminate the area inside the AMF?" (I would argue it does, but some might disagree).

Since Magic Fang affects a creature, not a claw, it would cease to operate as long as some of Calder is within an AMF.

I'm actually with you on this one. The spell lists the target as "living creature touched". The spell is on the creature, not one part of the creature (which would be strange anyway). The effect is to make one natural weapon get a bonus, but the spell itself is on the creature, just like any other spell. I would similarly agrue that true seeing would not work, even if the person's head was outside the AMF. Same thinking. The spell is on the creature/person, not on their hand, or their eyes.

[brian 333]

A magic item which gives an enhancement bonus to natural attacks affects the creature, and is not targeted to a specific part of the creature. The tail is a part of the creature. A magic item that gives a bonus to a creature even partly in an AMF fails so long as at least a part of the creature remains in the AMF.

A magic lantern is not a worn item, any more than a kobold is. The lantern does not grant a bonus to the creature, it simply does what it does and so does the kobold.

Imagine if the Greenhilt Sword was a flaming weapon. Calder inside the field and holding the sword outside would be Calder holding a flaming weapon. If the weapon was inside the field and not Calder, it would be a Masterwork Weapon. If even the pommel is inside the AMF, the magic of the sword is off.

[gbaji]

A magic lantern is not a worn item, any more than a kobold is. The lantern does not grant a bonus to the creature, it simply does what it does and so does the kobold.

I still thiink you are confusing the issue by introducing additional elements that are not relevant. Whether it's an item or a person, or whether it's worn or held, makes zero difference. What matters is the source and target of the spell effect. The source of the effect cannot be in an AMF. The target of the effect cannot be in an AMF.

If it was a magic ring that continously glowed instead of a lantern, it would also provide light if you pushed the hand that wore it outside of an AMF. Worn or held isn't the issue.

The relevance for a sentient being bieng in or out of an AMF, is that casting or activating magic is assumed to come "from the person taking the action", so if any part of that person is inside an AMF, they cannot activate magic items or cast spells. If you are in an AMF, and you extend your fireball wand outside the AMF, you can't actually activate the wand. However, if the same wand generates a continuous effect of some kind, that effect would occur once the wand is physically outside the AMF.

Imagine if the Greenhilt Sword was a flaming weapon. Calder inside the field and holding the sword outside would be Calder holding a flaming weapon. If the weapon was inside the field and not Calder, it would be a Masterwork Weapon. If even the pommel is inside the AMF, the magic of the sword is off.

I would follow the same rule as stated above. If the weapon flaming is a continous and normal condition for the item, then it's going to do flaming damage (though I'd argue any to-hit bonuses on the weapon would still not work since that's affecting the wielder, who is inside the AMF). Most flaming weapons do have to be activated though, but I suppose if you activated your flaming weapon, then got hit with an AMF, it would start flaming again once outside the AMF. That's kind of an interesting edge case, but I'd probably allow it if I were running the game.

Again though, the general rule is that both the source and target of the entire magic effect must be outside of the AMF for it to work. Any magic effect that requires activation makes the activating party part of the "source" of the magic. Any effect that affects a persons abilities in any way makes that person part of the "target" for the effect (so things like AC boosts, to-hit boosts, etc only work if the target is not in the AMF).

In the case of Roy calling his sword back to him, if both the sword and Roy are outside the AMF, then it should work (target and source both meet the requirements). It does not matter at all where Calder is in relation to any of this, whether he's holding or wearing the sword, or whether the sword is or is not sentient. None of that matters. Only whether both the sword and Roy are outside the AMF matters.

[brian 333]

I still thiink you are confusing the issue by introducing additional elements that are not relevant. Whether it's an item or a person, or whether it's worn or held, makes zero difference. What matters is the source and target of the spell effect. The source of the effect cannot be in an AMF. The target of the effect cannot be in an AMF.

If it was a magic ring that continously glowed instead of a lantern, it would also provide light if you pushed the hand that wore it outside of an AMF. Worn or held isn't the issue.

I'm not really sure what we are arguing, here. You say I am confusing the issue, then restate what I just said.

The source of the effect cannot be in an AMF. The target of the effect cannot be in an AMF.

This is my point. You said it much better. I tried to give examples of how that applied, someone made a joke, and you have from that point onward been repeatedly telling me I am wrong while agreeing with me.

The relevance for a sentient being bieng in or out of an AMF, is that casting or activating magic is assumed to come "from the person taking the action", so if any part of that person is inside an AMF, they cannot activate magic items or cast spells. If you are in an AMF, and you extend your fireball wand outside the AMF, you can't actually activate the wand. However, if the same wand generates a continuous effect of some kind, that effect would occur once the wand is physically outside the AMF.

I do not believe anything I wrote could be construed as disagreement with this.

I would follow the same rule as stated above. If the weapon flaming is a continous and normal condition for the item, then it's going to do flaming damage (though I'd argue any to-hit bonuses on the weapon would still not work since that's affecting the wielder, who is inside the AMF). Most flaming weapons do have to be activated though, but I suppose if you activated your flaming weapon, then got hit with an AMF, it would start flaming again once outside the AMF. That's kind of an interesting edge case, but I'd probably allow it if I were running the game.

Again though, the general rule is that both the source and target of the entire magic effect must be outside of the AMF for it to work. Any magic effect that requires activation makes the activating party part of the "source" of the magic. Any effect that affects a persons abilities in any way makes that person part of the "target" for the effect (so things like AC boosts, to-hit boosts, etc only work if the target is not in the AMF).

Agree again. [Quibble] Masterwork Bonus is not magical, so you get the +1 To Hit/+1 To Damage no matter what. Additional magic damage such as Enhancement Bonus or Fire Damage apply if the weapon is outside the AMF and does not require activation. [/Quibble]

In the case of Roy calling his sword back to him, if both the sword and Roy are outside the AMF, then it should work (target and source both meet the requirements). It does not matter at all where Calder is in relation to any of this, whether he's holding or wearing the sword, or whether the sword is or is not sentient. None of that matters. Only whether both the sword and Roy are outside the AMF matters.

Again, I agree. For clarity, I never said or implied sentience mattered at all. That was a joke post made by someone else! if that is the totality of your issue, I suggest that you have been tilting with the wrong windmill. You and I appear to agree with how AMF works.


I think I may have a better analogy for what I was trying to say with the magic item and the kobold on the dragon's tail.

You and I have characters stuck in a giant glue trap which is located in an AMF. We each can extend one hand out of the AMF.
On my character's hand is a ring of invisibility which activates when worn. My character extends her hand outside the AMF and nothing happens because Invisibility affects a creature, and the target creature, my character, is inside the AMF.
On your character's hand is a ring of Invisibility 10' Radius, similarly activated when worn. Your character extends his hand outside the AMF, and nothing happens, to him. Our third teammate, however, who is outside the AMF but within 10' of the ring becomes invisible because the magic of the ring is targeted at an area, and that part of its area not under the AMF is still affected by the ring.

[OvisCaedo]

Thinking on it, I actually won't discount the idea that Roy's sword could end up stabbed into Bloodfeast. I just don't think it would be a severe injury, and would more be how Calder loses his grip on it so that Roy can get it back.

But he could also just drop it.

[KorvinStarmast]

But he could also just drop it.

Given how often Roy does that, why not?

[bunsen_h]

Thinking on it, I actually won't discount the idea that Roy's sword could end up stabbed into Bloodfeast. I just don't think it would be a severe injury, and would more be how Calder loses his grip on it so that Roy can get it back.

But he could also just drop it.

Could Bloodfeast have enough understanding that Belkar could tell him to try to knock the sword out of Calder's grasp? Assuming that Calder didn't let go of it as he let go of Vaarsuvius, of course, but that wasn't shown. Bloodfeast did seem to understand that Belkar was going to fling him into battle.