Skylancer4 wrote:It actually says "sword scabbard" not polearm, covering or anything else, just to point that out.
According to PFS fighter weapon groups, the Scythe is a Heavy Blade, not a polearm. I know, I would consider it a polearm, but that isn't supported by the rules.
You are correct, it does say sword scabbard. That said, Seems vague on that point, as swords are not really a defined term. Came up in another thread, too. The term, sword, is thrown around a lot, but rarely defined directly. I would argue the intention is for a sword shaped scabbard, but I see nothing suggesting that this is intended purely for swords. It is, however, clearly for Heavy Blades only.
A heavy blade is still not always a sword, when categorizing things to simplify and speed up game play, items will get put into categories that best fit, instead of making new categories for every item that doesn't fit perfectly.
Being in the heavy blades category doesn't automatically make the item a sword, nor does it mean it has a sword scabbard. A sword scabbard is a pretty particular "object" and not all swords have sword scabbards on top of that (case in point that sword with all the protrusions off of it or the monk sword with the rings through the blade etc). If not all swords have scabbards how are you "logic'ing" that non-swords have sword scabbards?
Not judging, but for better or worse, this is at best a try at twisting the rules to do something they aren't meant to "because similarities". Just to reiterate that isn't an accusation, but this is exactly the type of behaviour/thought proccess that any GM who has had a problematic player in the past will raise an eye brow and wonder what you are trying to pull.