|
Scythe is part of the fighter Heavy Blade group. Sort of an odd fit when compared to other heavy blades.
Heavy Blade Scabbard Tricks
In addition to the feat, skill, or other requirement listed for each of these tricks, you must have the Equipment Trick (heavy blade scabbard) feat to use a trick. You may use these tricks with any sword scabbard designed for a heavy blade (see the fighter weapon groups on page 56 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook). At your GM’s discretion, you may be able to use some of these tricks with a scabbard intended for a light blade, but that requires a separate Equipment Trick feat and may be less effective.
Can I take this for a Scythe?
I've never owned a scythe, much less, never even seen a real one built for combat. I'm not really sure if this is an appropriate feat for a scythe user, but I figured I'd double check given it being such an odd fit for that weapon group.
A real Scythe made for farming that the one in the combat section is based off of has a blade at an angle, and twisted so a low sweeping motion can be used to cut plant matter. So, it wouldn't work for that.
The one closer to what you see like this never exactly come with one either. But, I don't see why they couldnt have one.
|
|
The one closer to what you see like this never exactly come with one either. But, I don't see why they couldnt have one.
Yeah, that's the one I'm guessing they mean, given they refer to it as a martial weapon. Sort of a bladed pick with a long handle.
As for scabbards, Spears use scabbards, as do axes and most sharp objects. Guns use scabbards too, sometimes (often called other things).
Right, holsters, scabbards, sheathes, etc... those all come with weapons of war. The version of the scythe we're discussing... doesn't exist actually. Not as anything more than a really sweet prop. So, since we're dipping into the fantasy realm for this to begin with, there's no reason to say there wouldn't be a sheath of some kind. In fact when you consider that weapons of war do by and large have scabbards, it makes sense to say this fantasy scabbard would come with the cool scythe.
Yes? You'd get benefits for having a scabbard for your sword if you wanted that instead. I'm saying it makes logical sense to me to allow the use of this particular equipment trick with a scythe, as it is designed as a weapon and there is really nothing saying it wouldn't be cared for with a sheath of some kind.
No RAW saying "no," but induction says "probably." No idea what that scabbard would look like though, a leather sling with a strap?
I could see the blade folding down to the handle, with the blade and part of the handle fitting into a Scabard of some sort...
Scythes on the battlefield were NOT just a straight up agricultural tool being used as a weapon. They weren't farming tools but purpose built items with their blade rotated 90 degrees from the "grim reaper" depiction... more like a glaive.
Here's a picture of one:
https://www.faganarms.com/collections/catalog-97/products/a-17th-century-ge rman-or-swiss-war-scythe-97-1034-wfl072
And here's Lindybeige going over what a rubbish weapon an actual agricultural scythe would be:
In neither case (purpose built or agricultural implement used as a rubbish weapon) is this a weapon for which you would be using heavy reinforced sheath that would work well as a club in your offhand.
Scythes on the battlefield were NOT just a straight up agricultural tool being used as a weapon. They weren't farming tools but purpose built items with their blade rotated 90 degrees from the "grim reaper" depiction... more like a glaive.
Here's a picture of one:
https://www.faganarms.com/collections/catalog-97/products/a-17th-century-ge rman-or-swiss-war-scythe-97-1034-wfl072And here's Lindybeige going over what a rubbish weapon an actual agricultural scythe would be:
In neither case (purpose built or agricultural implement used as a rubbish weapon) is this a weapon for which you would be using heavy reinforced sheath that would work well as a club in your offhand.
For the record, I'm aware of all that. But I can guarantee you the War Scythe is not what people think of when they think "I wanna use a scythe!"
|
|
Here's a picture of one:
https://www.faganarms.com/collections/catalog-97/products/a-17th-century-ge rman-or-swiss-war-scythe-97-1034-wfl072
Yeah, does look more like a bladed spear, but that would certainly have a sheath/scabbard. Yeah, guess I'll go with this. Thanks.
Yeah, does look more like a bladed spear, but that would certainly have a sheath/scabbard. Yeah, guess I'll go with this. Thanks.Here's a picture of one:
https://www.faganarms.com/collections/catalog-97/products/a-17th-century-ge rman-or-swiss-war-scythe-97-1034-wfl072
It actually says "sword scabbard" not polearm, covering or anything else, just to point that out.
The two requirements being a sword scabbard and being part of the heavy blades group, that would (at least to me) mean that it wouldn't work with a scythe. It doesn't meet both prerequisites, at least as far as the rules go. If you want to houserule/homebrew things, obviously do as you like, but you should at least be aware of the actual rules preventing it as far as what we have in the write up (this being discussed in the Rules Forum).
|
|
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.
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.