Anyone that starts a thread about how one job's style of playing (in this case, 'smooth simplicity with few buttons' ) should be the golden standard for all jobs, is making SO many unspoken assumptions.
What it usually comes down to is, something suits their preferred play style, and they do not consider that different people could actually want to play through completely different control schemes.
Let's consider if we took it in the other direction instead -- imagine for a moment that instead of chasing one design philosophy across all jobs, we instead went and had job types that play so wildly unalike that you could question if they were even in the same genre. For the sake of example, we are going to ignore questions about how they'd balance the fights, that would be an interesting hypothetical for another time. Imagine we have a job that at the start of combat ditches the whole hotbar/action interface entirely and plays like a first person shooter running around the arena. A tank job that mitigates through playing DDR. A support job that stands outside the arena and contributes to defeating the boss by rapidly solving puzzle mini games to create effects in the arena.
Would it be a bad thing if 'how it plays' is so different between jobs? Each would appeal to players that enjoy entirely different kind of challenges. There would be far fewer people that would play all the jobs, but when you think about it, why do we all feel like we need to be leveled up in every job there is anyway instead of just the ones that play in ways that we experience as fun?
This forum often says it, if you try to make a game for everyone, you make a game for noone. This applies to jobs to. It is fine if there are jobs whose style of play would not appeal to all players, as long as there are enough players that enjoy it.
Reduce all jobs to one kind of design, and you reduce the player community you are appealing to to only one niche as well.