D&D 3.x 3.5 weapon sizing: compelling reasons?

[Vocenoctum]

Once again, in a system (D&D) which doesn't bother with hit locations, impairment of capabilities from wounds etc. etc. why spend effort on the relative diameter of weapon hilts?

At what point does the law of diminishing returns apply, I wonder?

How come no one complained that shields were applied to size in 3e, but they complain that weapons are in 3.5?

The answer to your question is ye Olde Sacred Cow. There isn't impairment of abilities because Hit Points exist.
Does this mean that halflings riding smaller horses shouldn't be mentioned, because there's no hit location chart for combat?

Weapon's Size wasn't important enough to hold onto "just because that's how it is" for the design team, so they replaced it with a system that they consider better. Some folks agree, some don't, but I don't see how it's more complicated.

Basically, I don't see the diminishing returns, because it doesn't complicate the system more than before. Different but Equal, if not Better.

So, for a system that doesn't bother with X, Y, Z, why spend effort on realism for different grip sizes? because it was no effort.