I understand what the polar form of complex numbers means, but I don't understand why it's justified. Complex numbers, by definition, have nothing to do with a complex plane. The complex plane is simply a graphical way to represent them. So representing complex numbers in polar form seems to me to be a leap.
My only guess is that it's a leap that's useful and internally consistent, somewhat analogous to expressing negative exponents as exponents of reciprocals and reciprocal exponents as roots. Doing so retains the laws of exponents, so we define such exponents that way because it's useful and consistent.
The polar form of complex numbers just seems like a bigger leap, I guess. It's always prefaced by, "If we represent a complex number on the complex plane…", which seems arbitrary itself. I'm hoping that I'm missing something and that there's a more concrete justification.
It's possible to show that we can work with the polar form of complex numbers without actually using any geometry at all!
$\DeclareMathOperator{\cis}{cis}$ First, given a non-zero complex number $z=a+bi$, we can let $r=\sqrt{a^2+b^2}$ and rewrite $z$ as $$z=r\left(\frac ar+\frac bri\right).$$ From the definition of $r$, we know that $(a/r)^2+(b/r)^2=1$. Now we want to show that for any real numbers $x$, $y$ with $x^2+y^2=1$, there is a $\theta$ such that $\cos\theta=x$ and $\sin\theta=y$. The easiest way to make this argument may be geometrically, but we can still do so without using geometry, by defining $\theta$ by $$\theta=\begin{cases}\arccos x&y>0\\ -\arccos x&y<0\\ 0&y=0,\,x=1\\ \pi &y=0,\,x=-1\end{cases}$$ (where $\arccos$ is assumed to take values in $[0,\pi)$). It's not all that pretty, but hopefully you can convince yourself that it works.
Going back to our complex number $z$, if we apply our lemma to $x=a/r$ and $y=b/r$, we can find a $\theta$ with $\cos\theta=a/r$ and $\sin\theta=b/r$, so $z=r(\cos\theta+i\sin\theta)$. So we have showed the existence of the polar form of a complex number! The quantity $\cos\theta+i\sin\theta$ is sometimes abbreviated as $\cis\theta$; I'll use that in the rest of the answer.
Now that we have the existence of the polar form, can we show that it's useful? What happens when we multiply two complex numbers in polar form? Suppose $z_1=\cis\theta_1$ and $z_2=\cis\theta_2$. Then, $$\begin{align*}z_1z_2&=\cis\theta_1\cis\theta_2\\ &=(\cos\theta_1+i\sin\theta_1)(\cos\theta_2+i\sin\theta_2)\\ &=(\cos\theta_1\cos\theta_2-\sin\theta_1\sin\theta_2)+i(\cos\theta_1\sin\theta_2+\cos\theta_2\sin\theta_1)\\&=\cos(\theta_1+\theta_2)+i\sin(\theta_1+\theta_2)\\&=\cis(\theta_1+\theta_2)\end{align*}$$ All we've used are the addition formulas for $\sin$ and $\cos$! A similar derivation shows that if we divide instead, we get $z_1/z_2=\cis(\theta_1-\theta_2)$.
Using polar form becomes especially useful if we want to take powers of complex numbers. Computing $(1+i)^5$ by multiplying everything out is a pain. But if we instead recognize that $1+i=\sqrt2\cis(\pi/4)$, then it's much easier to find $(1+i)^5=4\sqrt2\cis(5\pi/4)=-4-4i$.
Once you've proven Euler's formula $e^{i\theta}=\cos\theta+i\sin\theta$ you can dispense with the $\cis$ and use $re^{i\theta}$ instead of $r\cis\theta$, but the nice thing about using $\cis$ is that it can be done without any knowledge of calculus or exponentials. I hope that this sheds some light on the subject!