I do. You can't hold me to what other people's opinions are. It's deeply misleading for both of you to call it "good", when it's in fact "the absolute maximum optimization you can apply within the rules".
I'm not holding you to their statements, but their statements match with what I've seen other people refer to when talking about good grapplers. You seem to want to dismiss those aspects of the system and ignore them, and I'm not sure why. Even if it is the "the absolute maximum optimization you can apply within the rules" I'd still argue it isn't good for the game.
As for "perverse", no, I did not call you that, and asserting I did is proving my point. I said that the argument you were presenting was logically perverse. You didn't actually even refute that.
Because you only say it is perverse because you refuse to see that new options have opened up even while old options went away. You insist that new options don't exist, because they aren't the old options.
Meanwhile, I would argue that this version has un-perverted many of the problems with the old system. For example, now Monks can be the best grapplers, which makes sense, and high strength characters are better than high dex characters at maintaining grapples. These are all exactly in-line with what we would expect to see from a grappling system, and these just simply were not the case before.
Sure, I agree.
Because I'm focused on the actual facts. The actual rules. What's on the page.
Whereas you're focused on imagining stuff that this new system might or might not maybe possibly allow. It's possible everything you're imagining will happen, but extremely unlikely. What's a lot more likely, given WotC's history, is literally none of what you're imagining will happen.
But this is the crux of the issue. I want to talk about the actual rules. You want hope there'll be more to them. I very much doubt there will be. 5E has not had a good history in that regard. I did say, much earlier though, that if they added class features and so on, they could fix this! So let's not pretend I didn't. But I'll adjust my opinion when those features appear and not one second before it.
Silvery Barbs and Mind Sliver are actual rules. Monks replacing Dexterity for Strength for Unarmed Strikes is an actual rule.
The only thing I'm "imagining" is that it is likely they will update the Grappler feat. This is speculation, 100%, but since they are overhauling the grappled condition.... it would be utterly moronic for them not to look at the Grappler feat. Now, will it be better? Don't know. But, many of us who have discussed this have all come to the same idea, that Grappler could give disadvantage on the saves.
But so far you have come across as vitriliocally declaring that grappling is ruined... and it isn't? The thing is, in practical terms, the worst case scenario (other than an unarmed strike shove) is that the grapple is broken at the end of the enemies turn, and you re-grapple on your turn. Which is not a major lose of utility, from my understanding of the set-up, and is actually more dynamic than a perma-grapple.
None of which are available to classes which are likely to grapple, so that's misleading.
No more misleading than the spells which were used before.
I'm not saying it should "remain the same". You seem to have missed my responses to others. My position is that, if they change grappling, the baseline ability to grapple needs to be better than what they're offering, given that you now get to escape FOR FREE.
I'm not ambivalent, because I'm looking at the actual rules, and right now, they're bad, real bad. Will they be bad later in the playtest? I dunno. Depends entirely on factors we can't account for, like, will WotC add class features, Feats, spells, etc. to allow grappling to work better for PCs?
Also you keep ignoring the Shove issue.
Shoving is much easier now. That massively advantages monsters, because it still has the size restriction (and monsters tend to be larger), and because it no longer involves Athletics (which monsters often don't have).
Shoving allows a creature to easily break any grapple at a very low cost (one attack) as long as they're not more than one size larger. It trivializes breaking grapples even. I mean, I'd propose the solution is that you can't Shove a creature who is grappling you, but they didn't put that rule in place.
I'm not ignoring it. I've acknowledged it. Repeatedly. But, it isn't a massive advantage to monsters. In fact, shove is a massive NERF to monsters. Oh, sure, it breaks the grapple. However, shove also allows anyone who can land a strength based attack to automatically knock any Large or smaller monster prone, no save, no advantage, no chance to resist. You just have to hit. That's massive
Now, I can agree that shove breaking the grapple is something I'm not a fan of. I wouldn't say it makes it worthless though, because there is a lot of interplay possible with movement and attacks of opportunity.