As a gnome, I'm assuming you want to be enlarged to fight another gnome or svirfnebli, perhaps enlarged against other mid-size foes as well,
And then reduce yourself against giants, so you are too small to bash?

Any other advice regarding how to use reduce and enlarge in general? Not feeling like I have the strategy down as to when it's important or what defensive/offensive abilities are noticeably impacted. My guess is there's more to it than meets the eye.

Most (not all) of the strategy around enlarge and reduce is around attacks that can't be used on someone of a certain size.

For example, take bash.

You cannot bash someone who is two sizes smaller than you (e.g., normal size giant trying to bash normal size gnome.)

On the other hand, being one size larger is advantageous for bashing.

Therefore, if (defensively) you're worried about being bashed, reducing to be two sizes smaller than your opponent is ideal, if possible, such as a human reducing to fight a giant. On the other hand, if you can't possibly be two sizes smaller, such as a human fighting another human, it's probably to your advantage to be as large as possible.

Another example would be blackjack, which can't be used on someone two sizes larger than you.

In most, but not all cases, other aspects of advantages for reducing/enlarging beyond what special attacks are advantageous or possible are kind of a wash. You pick up an advantage in one area but lose one in another area and it all roughly evens out.

>Most (not all) of the strategy around enlarge and reduce is
>around attacks that can't be used on someone of a certain
>size.
>
>For example, take bash.
>
>You cannot bash someone who is two sizes smaller than you
>(e.g., normal size giant trying to bash normal size gnome.)
>
>On the other hand, being one size larger is advantageous for
>bashing.
>
>Therefore, if (defensively) you're worried about being bashed,
>reducing to be two sizes smaller than your opponent is ideal,
>if possible, such as a human reducing to fight a giant. On
>the other hand, if you can't possibly be two sizes smaller,
>such as a human fighting another human, it's probably to your
>advantage to be as large as possible.
>
>Another example would be blackjack, which can't be used on
>someone two sizes larger than you.

Remembering a massive rant in the past, I feel a reminder wouldn't hurt that being bigger is always better in the case of bearcharge.

>In most, but not all cases, other aspects of advantages for
>reducing/enlarging beyond what special attacks are
>advantageous or possible are kind of a wash. You pick up an
>advantage in one area but lose one in another area and it all
>roughly evens out.

I am curious, any chance we could get more detail as to what other areas reduce/enlarge affects, even if they do end up a wash?

Being bigger than your opponent is a slight advantage for parrying, and being smaller than your opponent is a slight advantage for dodging.

.