Menacing and reach weapons

[gnrrrg]

"This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A menacing weapon helps allies deal with flanked foes. When the wielder is adjacent to a creature that is being flanked by an ally, the flanking bonus on attack rolls for all flanking allies increases by +2. This ability works even if the wielder is not one of the characters flanking the creature."

Non-reach weapons, you have to be adjacent with a foe to threaten them so it makes sense that a weapon with the menacing ability on it would only work if you were adjacent to the foe you want to use it on.

If the menaceing ability were on a reach weapon then would it only work if you were 10 feet away from the foe? Is there an FAQ or errata that I can't find that makes menacing work on threatened foes instead of adjacent foes?

[Are]

You'd still have to be adjacent, even if the menacing weapon has reach. The person with the menacing weapon doesn't need to be in a position to attack the flanked creature at all; the ability would then mainly help his/her allies (if they flank the creature).

In general, it's probably not a good idea to put menacing on a reach weapon, for that reason (it specifically says "adjacent" rather than "threatens", which it could very easily have done).

[Lifat]

Are is correct by RAW as far as I can see. It is however a stupid rule and I would deviate from it and allow it to be threatening instead of adjacent. But if you are playing strictly RAW then yes putting menacing on a reach weapon is probably a bad idea.

[gnrrrg]

I understand, RAW you have to be adjacent.

The question is, did they mean "threatening" when they said "adjacent"? That is, when they wrote the book they didn't consider reach weapons. It makes sense that threatening would be the prerequisite rather than just adjacency.

Whips don't threaten but they are melee; RAW, you can have a menacing whip - it doesn't make sense.

RAW, a menacing reach weapon is not complete foolishness. You wouldn't be able to gain the benefits of menace with that weapon but if two allies are flanking someone you are adjacent to then they would.

Also RAW, if you have a menacing reach weapon in one hand and a non-reach weapon in your other hand then you can use the benefits of the menace as long as you are attacking with the non-reach weapon.

Like I said, RAW doesn't make sense, "threatening" does.

So back to part two of the original question, has anyone seen an FAQ or errata on this?

[Lifat]

I don't think there are any FAQ or errata on this.
When you ask questions in here you will generally get RAW answers, unless you specify that you want RAI. In this case you got 2 RAW answers and 1 of those RAW answers accompanied it with personal feelings about the RAW.

RAI I think it is obvious that menacing should work for reach weapons. But others might disagree with me on this stating that RAW is so clear that they cannot believe the writers meant anything else.