Actually, this is not entirely true. For two reasons.
1) Scythes were used in wars as tools that are...well...deadly. By those that had them and didn't have means of getting any decent weapon. Uprisings etc. used normal scythes which were no less deadly than any other weapon out there. Drawbacks were there, but fighting with a scythe still gave a farmer much higher chance of victory against a sword user than just about anything else they could have. Heck, that farmer had better chance than the sword-using guy!
2) War-scythes were "evolved" from normal scythes, and in fact, very many of the scythes used were in fact remodeled tools. Hence those scythes were technically used in war one way or another.
I hope you do know that a scythe, even the farming tool version of it, when used in combat, IS a polearm. A polearm is basically every single weapon that uses a long shaft to hold. Yes, even if that shaft is the weapon itself, like quarter-staff. That means that both conjurers and black mages also use polearms. Hence this is little reason to dismiss it. Dragoons use polearms that are dominantly piercing (though there are halberds etc, which are both piercing and slashing), but scythes are dominantly slashing (heck, most of them are only slashing). And even for those that have spikes, they can't exactly be "thrown" in any way, shape or form. Not effectively anyway (yes, yes...I know halberds aren't ideal javelins either...). So scythe user could very well be reasonable.
Still, I prefer some more details to suggestions like that. Saying that you would love it and that it could have this or that is just not a suggestion. It's more of a plea. Is that fine?! Most certainly. But it's just different than what the thread starter is making it to be.
Eh...Yeah, that's pretty much what I said...They shafted the third job cause they relocated the resources to a different field...I just limited it to Stormblood, not expanding it to further expansions.
And points 1 and 2 are the reasons for why there are only DPS jobs...Those were in the very same interview in which the reason for two instead of three was given.