It isn’t a matter of being more open or viable; it is simply a question of how much you can gain from a background.
I think everyone would agree that there is a point at which it is too much. For example, if someone asked for a custom feat that gave +4 hp, a fighting style, and proficiency in all weapons, armor, and shields. And if the player said, “But that represents the type of soldier I was for my background.”, what would you say?
Everything comes down to opportunity cost. If your character devoted time for one thing, they wouldn’t have time for other things. If you spent more time training with weapons and armor, it came at the cost of developing your magic.
Getting back to the feat design, if just getting Light Armor isn’t enough, add in proficiency with one Martial weapon. Make the feat repeatable: each time you gain access to the next level of armor (or shields) and another Martial weapon.
But isn't the argument in favour of the new system that it is more open than the old? I am hearing a lot of 'Well it is ok, because they might not have been that kind of soldier.'
Which means, if you are a class that has no armour proficiency or not the right armour or weapon proficiency, you cannot have been that kind of soldier.
I mean, that's true of the Soldier background in the old system as well. In the old system every soldier knew how to play a game and drive a cart, even if they weren't "that kind of soldier." The new system at least allows for selecting a feat to represent some kind of military training (and I would be surprised if the One Edition PHB doesn't end up with some kind of armor/weapon proficiency feat).
I doubt anyone really would have an issue with light armor and simple weapons. Taking Magic Initiate instead would get you your daily mage armor anyways, which is arguably better at low levels, and the weapons are more fluff than actually useful*. Medium Armor, however, is pretty good on spellcasters. And we don't know if its a good thing to go from no armor to medium armor. So, there's understandably some doubt there.
So, ignoring the rest, the real question here is "Is Medium Armor Proficency a 1st level feat? And, if so, does it require light armor proficiency first, like the 5e feats do?" I'm sure that's where a lot of us are balking. As we've seen with dwarf armor, its a non-trivial thing for spellcasters. While there's a nuumber of combat-applicable feats, Lucky, Musician, Tavern Brawler and Savage Attacker primarily affect attack/damage rerolls or enabling a push. Nothing about static defenses.
If the OP wants to restrict to just Hide armor... well, I really have to ask why they wouldn't just take Magic Initiate and use Mage Armor instead of burning a feat. Its really strange that they want to use feat for something that, realistically, their character would never use. Which, admittedly, raises red flags in my mind.
*3e sorcerer had spear proficency, and I know some people want spear-sorcerers, even if it never was really a thing. I assume this is one of those cases.
Something else to consider, you can use weapons you aren't proficient in. You just aren't as good with them, like your average militia man.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Something else to consider, you can use weapons you aren't proficient in. You just aren't as good with them, like your average militia man.
Sure but if they were rolled into a light armor feat would it cause any balance issues? Heck if it was light armor and all simple and martial weapons it would not cause a balance issue. The people taking this feat and gaining anything from it don't have a second attack and they wont have the stats to capitalize on it, so they use a long bow instead of a crossbow, without the 2nd attack its meaningless, they decide to use a polearm, cool your sorcerer put enough in strength to use a polearm and is overall weaker for it.
Now for niche protection it might be a bit much, but even the OPs full feat suggestion, light armor, hide armor, simple weapons and one martial weapon. That still is probably weaker than 1/2 the feats already put into the play test. It sounds like a lot, but mechanically it helps two classes but not any more than magic initiate does, you get to wear hide which gives the same AC as mage armor but with a dex cap, you get to use weapons that in play wont be any better than a crossbow which you already have. Yes they could multiclass but 1 that would get them a lot more and two if a feat can swing it without balance issues, that is probably the better game design option. A wizard with a bit more combat training fits a feat better than a fully trained fighter that suddenly becomes a wizard.
Something else to consider, you can use weapons you aren't proficient in. You just aren't as good with them, like your average militia man.
Sure but if they were rolled into a light armor feat would it cause any balance issues? Heck if it was light armor and all simple and martial weapons it would not cause a balance issue. The people taking this feat and gaining anything from it don't have a second attack and they wont have the stats to capitalize on it, so they use a long bow instead of a crossbow, without the 2nd attack its meaningless, they decide to use a polearm, cool your sorcerer put enough in strength to use a polearm and is overall weaker for it.
Now for niche protection it might be a bit much, but even the OPs full feat suggestion, light armor, hide armor, simple weapons and one martial weapon. That still is probably weaker than 1/2 the feats already put into the play test. It sounds like a lot, but mechanically it helps two classes but not any more than magic initiate does, you get to wear hide which gives the same AC as mage armor but with a dex cap, you get to use weapons that in play wont be any better than a crossbow which you already have. Yes they could multiclass but 1 that would get them a lot more and two if a feat can swing it without balance issues, that is probably the better game design option. A wizard with a bit more combat training fits a feat better than a fully trained fighter that suddenly becomes a wizard.
Martial weapons are still powerful enough and we do not know the state of how classes and spells will look like yet, so it's hard to give a specific answer, however dwarf casters wearing medium armour was definitely an issue, so I remain somewhat skeptical on the issue, I'd say no, simple weapons is enough and most soldiers would actually use simple weapons, not martial weapons. For example the Roman Gladius would like fall under the category of short sword, but more commonly your average soldier is going to use weapons like spears, javelins and short bows. All of these are available under "simple" weapons.
Most martial weapons are the types of weapons that often professional soldiers, samurai and mercenaries would spend their entire lives learning; heck look at longbows, England was once known for it's longbow men since law dictated that all men (14+) had to practice it's use for hours each week while under supervision of the Clergy, most other countries did not use longbows because of just how much training was required to actually use one, despite how devastating a longbow actually is, the investment was large. So I'd say that it really is the level pushing a level dip or a separate feat to light armour. The weapons you need to be a "soldier" are actually mostly covered by simple weapons.
Thats because medium armor is significantly better than light armor for spell casters, you get a 17 Ac while only needing a 14 in dex, light armor, you'd need a 20 dex to pull that off, and hide would cap out at 14 AC, hide is just worse studded leather, and martial weapons do nothing for a wiz/sor and very little for any other class who does not already have them. Martial weapons are a increase in damage but only for the classes who can do something with them.
The problem is you could say the same thing about spells, that a fighter doesn't get much from the flamebolt cantrip, but to get it I'd still make them either use magic initiate or a level dip. There are still magic items around like headband of intellect where suddenly they go from a +3 to attack to a +7 at level 8 when the Wizard actually gets their Intelligence to +4 looking to go +5 at 12 and hands it down to the fighter.
Similar things can happen with say Gauntlets of Ogre Power. Giving things for free can have unforeseen consequences down the line, so I remain skeptical on it, there are after all cantrips like Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade, which can be used along side quicken spell where yeah, it becomes a problem. Even if you don't hand these items out directly there have been ways to potentially obtain them anyway, for players, using downtime.
It isn’t a matter of being more open or viable; it is simply a question of how much you can gain from a background.
I think everyone would agree that there is a point at which it is too much. For example, if someone asked for a custom feat that gave +4 hp, a fighting style, and proficiency in all weapons, armor, and shields. And if the player said, “But that represents the type of soldier I was for my background.”, what would you say?
Everything comes down to opportunity cost. If your character devoted time for one thing, they wouldn’t have time for other things. If you spent more time training with weapons and armor, it came at the cost of developing your magic.
Getting back to the feat design, if just getting Light Armor isn’t enough, add in proficiency with one Martial weapon. Make the feat repeatable: each time you gain access to the next level of armor (or shields) and another Martial weapon.
I mean, that's true of the Soldier background in the old system as well. In the old system every soldier knew how to play a game and drive a cart, even if they weren't "that kind of soldier." The new system at least allows for selecting a feat to represent some kind of military training (and I would be surprised if the One Edition PHB doesn't end up with some kind of armor/weapon proficiency feat).
I doubt anyone really would have an issue with light armor and simple weapons. Taking Magic Initiate instead would get you your daily mage armor anyways, which is arguably better at low levels, and the weapons are more fluff than actually useful*. Medium Armor, however, is pretty good on spellcasters. And we don't know if its a good thing to go from no armor to medium armor. So, there's understandably some doubt there.
So, ignoring the rest, the real question here is "Is Medium Armor Proficency a 1st level feat? And, if so, does it require light armor proficiency first, like the 5e feats do?" I'm sure that's where a lot of us are balking. As we've seen with dwarf armor, its a non-trivial thing for spellcasters. While there's a nuumber of combat-applicable feats, Lucky, Musician, Tavern Brawler and Savage Attacker primarily affect attack/damage rerolls or enabling a push. Nothing about static defenses.
If the OP wants to restrict to just Hide armor... well, I really have to ask why they wouldn't just take Magic Initiate and use Mage Armor instead of burning a feat. Its really strange that they want to use feat for something that, realistically, their character would never use. Which, admittedly, raises red flags in my mind.
*3e sorcerer had spear proficency, and I know some people want spear-sorcerers, even if it never was really a thing. I assume this is one of those cases.
Something else to consider, you can use weapons you aren't proficient in. You just aren't as good with them, like your average militia man.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Sure but if they were rolled into a light armor feat would it cause any balance issues? Heck if it was light armor and all simple and martial weapons it would not cause a balance issue. The people taking this feat and gaining anything from it don't have a second attack and they wont have the stats to capitalize on it, so they use a long bow instead of a crossbow, without the 2nd attack its meaningless, they decide to use a polearm, cool your sorcerer put enough in strength to use a polearm and is overall weaker for it.
Now for niche protection it might be a bit much, but even the OPs full feat suggestion, light armor, hide armor, simple weapons and one martial weapon. That still is probably weaker than 1/2 the feats already put into the play test. It sounds like a lot, but mechanically it helps two classes but not any more than magic initiate does, you get to wear hide which gives the same AC as mage armor but with a dex cap, you get to use weapons that in play wont be any better than a crossbow which you already have. Yes they could multiclass but 1 that would get them a lot more and two if a feat can swing it without balance issues, that is probably the better game design option. A wizard with a bit more combat training fits a feat better than a fully trained fighter that suddenly becomes a wizard.
Martial weapons are still powerful enough and we do not know the state of how classes and spells will look like yet, so it's hard to give a specific answer, however dwarf casters wearing medium armour was definitely an issue, so I remain somewhat skeptical on the issue, I'd say no, simple weapons is enough and most soldiers would actually use simple weapons, not martial weapons. For example the Roman Gladius would like fall under the category of short sword, but more commonly your average soldier is going to use weapons like spears, javelins and short bows. All of these are available under "simple" weapons.
Most martial weapons are the types of weapons that often professional soldiers, samurai and mercenaries would spend their entire lives learning; heck look at longbows, England was once known for it's longbow men since law dictated that all men (14+) had to practice it's use for hours each week while under supervision of the Clergy, most other countries did not use longbows because of just how much training was required to actually use one, despite how devastating a longbow actually is, the investment was large. So I'd say that it really is the level pushing a level dip or a separate feat to light armour. The weapons you need to be a "soldier" are actually mostly covered by simple weapons.
Thats because medium armor is significantly better than light armor for spell casters, you get a 17 Ac while only needing a 14 in dex, light armor, you'd need a 20 dex to pull that off, and hide would cap out at 14 AC, hide is just worse studded leather, and martial weapons do nothing for a wiz/sor and very little for any other class who does not already have them. Martial weapons are a increase in damage but only for the classes who can do something with them.
The problem is you could say the same thing about spells, that a fighter doesn't get much from the flamebolt cantrip, but to get it I'd still make them either use magic initiate or a level dip. There are still magic items around like headband of intellect where suddenly they go from a +3 to attack to a +7 at level 8 when the Wizard actually gets their Intelligence to +4 looking to go +5 at 12 and hands it down to the fighter.
Similar things can happen with say Gauntlets of Ogre Power. Giving things for free can have unforeseen consequences down the line, so I remain skeptical on it, there are after all cantrips like Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade, which can be used along side quicken spell where yeah, it becomes a problem. Even if you don't hand these items out directly there have been ways to potentially obtain them anyway, for players, using downtime.