In RPGs you're playing both the short game and the long game. The "short" game is the individual battle, where you're just selecting your attacks. Focusing exclusively on the short game will make the genre seem uninteresting, and that's what midwits tend to do. It's as reductive as saying Morrowind or Diablo are games about clicking enemies.
The long game is how you've built your characters, how you've learned the mechanics to maximize your team's potential, class selection etc. It's shit like social links in Persona or fusing strong demons, or catching new Pokémon, or exploring to get better weapons and experimenting with jobs and classes. If you play the long game well, then the short game is easier because you're coming into those fights stronger. Having an easy short game is a testament to how well you've built your party and explored the game. This is why people find joy in "breaking" RPGs with overpowered strats they themselves discovered because it means they're playing the long game exceptionally well and fully explored the depths of the game.
On the other hand, people who play the long game badly get filtered by tougher levels or bosses and then complain about having to grind when they're genuinely just bad. They can't understand that they're failing because they didn't bother trying to play the game well and will instead blame the game for forcing them to grind to make up for their lack of party diversity, experimentation, exploration etc.
Most real time games that are widely praised have trash combat anyway where you just mash to win. Even NieR Automata had boring combat with no thinking or skill required and made me use my brain less than Dragon Quest XI on Hard (with grinding disabled) or most JRPGs I've played on Normal for that matter.
tl;dr
Having an easy short game is actually the reward for doing well in the *real* gameplay.