To each their own, but I'll remain very firm that having it stand as your entire 1st level perk is a more egregious overlap waste than having it pop in as the lesser half of a 6th level perk, each of which come with an independent aspect that adds more flavour and function to the class at the same time. One of these feels like a bigger waste than the other and, as the originator of this post is pointing out, it feels like a very big waste, and a strong disincentive to have a character align the elements of the background - whereas in the current style for 5e design, it doesn't really; it's a minor overlap at best, because it doesn't cost you any great amount of actual investment value overall.
Having saving throw advantage on various things is not new, with dwarven resilience being the most common easy example - it gives resistance to poison damage and advantage on saving throws against poison - Not just adv against poison damage, but adv against any and all poison, which anything that would inflict the poisoned condition is going to count for, and it's a design feature that nothing that inflicts the poisoned condition does so without some kind of save for this to work with.
It's not about doing as it's always been done - it's about doing in a way that fits together more smoothly, as the system is designed to work. I absolutely agree that things like sorcerer expanded spell list have been along time coming, and I've been strongly pushing that the anniversary release should include, in its various updates and retrofits, the presentation of like sets for all sorcerer subclasses (Though I was more leery of the new version of summoning spells; they step slightly away from the simplicity philosophy, on the player side of the game, and more than I think they should, even if the spells themselves are nice). There are a lot of things that aren't quite right with 5e, and many things that need tweaked or adjusted - but ignoring the established design structure for the pure sake of doing so is only going to cause conflicts if it's not done carefully and with consideration to what you're changing - as we see right here.
WotC are not terribly involved with this game - money changed hands and permissions of licence were granted, and beyond that, Wizards' involvement in this entire project has been virtually nil compared to their interest in other previous projects that they've been associated with. They don't care, because this game being publicly a flop is just as much to their benefit as it being good - all that matters, for Wizards, is that it's big, boom or bust. They win either way, and staying mostly hands off is the best way to ensure they maximise their minimum outcome.
