>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?