I find it funny that you're focusing on Monk or Warlock being the weakest when the general consensus since the beginning was that Rangers have the least "spotlight time" of any class in the game.

Monks tend to not hit very hard, but the do hit a lot. So while their damage won't spike as well as a Fighter or Paladin, they'll still provide consistent output. They also don't have to sacrifice their damage output in order to provide crowd control. They also get a lot of fun ribbon abilities.

Warlocks are weird because everyone wants to compare them to casters but Eldritch Blast makes them more like martials. They're also fun because between the Pacts and Invocations they can become the most customizable class in the game.

Rangers are middling damage. Their numbers don't get as high as Barbarians, Fighters, or Paladins. And the exploration that they're supposed to excell at is usually just glossed over by most groups. And even when it isn't, there are other classes that can do it better. There are reasons WoTC has made two Unearthed Arcanas rewriting Rangers.

Quote from Wren_the_Munificent >>

 

It is so that your character can stand alongside other characters and get his share of time in the spotlight.

I'll offer a counter-point to this. This is something that relies more heavily on the dungeon master than anything that the player chooses to or is able to do.

Rangers have stealth nearly as good as Rogues AND, on top of that, they get  Pass without Trace.  They can easily shine in the stealth game..

Quote from Jacked_Goblin >>

Quote from Wren_the_Munificent >>

 

It is so that your character can stand alongside other characters and get his share of time in the spotlight.

 

I'll offer a counter-point to this. This is something that relies more heavily on the dungeon master than anything that the player chooses to or is able to do.

 If the GM and players suck, then perhaps.  But good players should figure out how to best beat the bad guys and good GMs should let them.  It shouldn't be up to the GM to fit a stealth, scouting, or social, or whatever approach into the adventure.  It should be up to the players, roleplaying as characters, to figure out how it is possible to defeat the bad guys using a stealth, scouting, social, or whatever strategy.

This thread took a really long time to read for a lot of the same things being said and there is a lot of uneccessary back and forth from the op. I have to agree with a lot of the players that there is not a weakest class because a bunch of what they said makes more sense than trying to figure out how to make one of them look weaker than the other. It is not about being weakest because the efforts of the entire party puts everyone in the spotlight just like everyone can die in any scene at any time if they make bad choices regardless of how the DM has it set up then the DM shines. Your opinion is really the only thing that you think matters so there really wasn't a point to asking us what we thought since you already had your mind made up.

Can we at least agree the monk is the weakest caster?

I don't think monk is weak at all. While they may not have such a barrage like a fighter, they can't be disarmed, unless they are quite literally disarmed. They get a little practicality in some abilities, such as knowing every language. But a key thing I find cool is the fact that they get a bonus action to make another punch, or even a barrage of punches with flurry of blows. They also always have their armor on, which helps. Haven't even gotten to the subclasses, like a diet spell caster, a weapon monk, an even more weaponless monk, etc. I even remember one subclass with an ability that could instantly kill enemies, but it had a DC, and its so easy to spell and ability save DC's as long as you get average rolls to be fair.

Quote from BobobSyxtieNein >>

I don't think monk is weak at all. While they may not have such a barrage like a fighter, they can't be disarmed, unless they are quite literally disarmed. They get a little practicality in some abilities, such as knowing every language. But a key thing I find cool is the fact that they get a bonus action to make another punch, or even a barrage of punches with flurry of blows. They also always have their armor on, which helps. Haven't even gotten to the subclasses, like a diet spell caster, a weapon monk, an even more weaponless monk, etc. I even remember one subclass with an ability that could instantly kill enemies, but it had a DC, and its so easy to spell and ability save DC's as long as you get average rolls to be fair.

 I know, monks are great in certain aspects, bad in others. This is the same for all classes, barbarians typically aren't good at ranged attacks, wizards aren't good in melee combat (or at least can't survive it), Bards aren't good (just kidding, they're great, they aren't good at knowing a lot of spells), druids aren't good cavaliers. All classes have a niche that they're most comfortable in, for monks it is punching and throwing darts, for warlocks it's being as freaky as possible and shooting eldritch blasts that look like skulls and push people off cliffs. Kensei monks can actually deal pretty good damage at range if they want, Sun Soul monks can always do radiant damage if they want, Way of the Long Death monks NEVER DIE, but some of them (*cough* Four Elements *cough*) aren't good. Warlocks can be good in melee combat if they're hexblades, decent healers as Celestials, and good blasters as Archfiends. These subclasses can some times make up for the lack of good class making, which is why the Beast Master ranger is bad, and the Gloom Stalker is great.

And another thing, asserting that the game is too complex to have a weakest class isn't making a point.  It is making as assertion, an assertion which is no more meritable than its opposite 

An actual point would need proof and relevance, neither of which was given.  So, when SttyleStriker mentions points he made, I don't know what he's talking about.  He didn't make points.  He made assertions.

Quote from Wren_the_Munificent >>

And another thing, asserting that the game is too complex to have a weakest class isn't making a point.  It is making as assertion, an assertion which is no more meritable than its opposite 

An actual point would need proof and relevance, neither of which was given.  So, when SttyleStriker mentions points he made, I don't know what he's talking about.  He didn't make points.  He made assertions.

 Well, I don't think there can really be a "weakest class" because not all classes are meant to do the same thing. You could argue the Barbarian is the worst class at being a spellcaster, because that isn't what the barbarian class is trying to accomplish. You can argue the Sorcerer is the weakest melee weapon attacker, because that isn't what the sorcerer or any of its official subclasses are trying to accomplish. You cannot have a weakest class because you didn't specify what it should be weakest at doing. Monks are the weakest, at least when regarded to damage dice at level one. Warlocks are the weakest spellcasters when regarding how many spell slots that full casters have at level one to level 20. They don't have to be the best at their abilities because that isn't what they're trying to accomplish. The job of the barbarian is to smash and hack through anything and everything that you can, that's why their abilities are flavored around rage. Warlocks are supposed to be good at regaining spell slots when they need to and they are supposed to have good cantrips to make sure that when you use your 2 spell slots at level 7 you can do decent damage at range.

Warlocks are arguably the worst unarmed fighters, and monks are arguably the worst at eldritch blast. 

You simply cannot say one class is best or worst, because if a spellcaster and a monk is gagged, blind-folded, and hand-cuffed, the monk is a lot better off than the spellcaster is. If a spellcaster is 100 ft away from the target they want to attack with a giant pit in between them, the spellcaster is generally better off than the monk is. Different circumstances let different classes shine, and a good DM will have different situations to play on the strengths of each individual character, one stealth mission for the rogue, one weaponless battle for the monk, one melee battle against the BBEG for the paladin, a swarm of goblins for the evoker with fireball. Each class is better in certain circumstances, so none can be inherently better or worse than the other classes.