LR can be really effective at things that are quite complex/difficult to do in PS. Don't undersell LR by thinking of it as a basic programme.
like what?
The shot below for example.
Image was exposed to retain sky and fill flash used on my first DSLR 10 years back. However the flash didn't fire properly so Joseph is extremely underexposed. Tried fixing this in PS with lots of tedious and fiddly masking and a lot of time taken, but I was never happy with the results. However working on the raw file in LR a couple years later I got a decent result with a few minutes work, if that.
If you open up up your raw files as smart objects into PS then you can do the same things. This is because ACR and LR dev module are the same thing, except that ACR is an aged and clunky design set in stone before it was realised that this initially small part of the process was going to end up being the major part.
I am a photoshop user and never saw a good reason to go to LR... ( do not need the catalogue part)
Used PS since v3 and beta tested it too. But discovered a long time back that you do most of the work i.e. all the grading/developing on the raw file before you even get to PS. As LR/ACR improved then that unless you are doing composite work or using layer blending going to PS was now redundant most of the time. Not having to do selections and masking to tweak individual areas of an image is a huge time saver. Come to think of it even some compositing work is now no longer needed - for example combining several versions of an image with different colour temperature light sources to get a neutral shot. Simply paint correct colour temp on with the brush tool.
As for catalogue part, quickly and easily finding one's work and the usefulness/speed of smart collections is overrated.
Not to mention the sheer usefulness of integrating organising one's images and working with them en masse, utterly pointless, much better to do everything one at a time in different programmes.
.