I've seen others reply with "this is an obvious error that'll be corrected later" as Grease is also listed as Spell Rank 1 in the PC1 book.
I'm hoping it's not intended to be moved to R3, but I do want to say there's a... high chance that was supposed to happen.
In the PC1 book, they also altered how bomb splash damage works. Instead of hitting the full splash AoE on Strike miss, now only the initial target is splashed. (IMO it's a good spot for a nerf that *should* let Paizo improve the Alch in other ways)
But like with Grease, the original text was left somewhere else, in the bomb case it's the GM book that has the old version. So there's literally a contradiction now, and I think it's 95% likely that bombs will be altered to match the newer version in the PC1 book.
So, what I'm trying to say is that there is a chance Grease was intended to be nerfed/changed from a R1 spell into an R3 spell.
It's a really, really good spell. Forcing save or prone in an AoE, lingering squares that either force more saves or still eat actions to Step through.
From a design/balance perspective, there's no other R1 spell that comes close that I've yet seen. With how spellcasting DC does not care about slot rank, it's the definition of evergreen.
It's even flexible in it's ability to optionally grease up a PC to help against Grapples, which actually may be the better option VS some foes. IMO the weapon greasing is a dud though, the unattended requirement means that a PC could just snatch the weapon away.
IMO, Grease would be a bit more balanced as an R2 spell, but moving it to R3 is also... "balanced"
So for now, while it's still listed as an R1 spell, have fun with it. IDK if it'll be R1 for much longer.
conversations about spells or rules text is generally put in Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion, but generally if you post in the wrong place, people will flag your post to be moved for you, and still try to answer your question for you.
You are right that there is an inconsistency in the the Player Core 1 about this, and it has been noted for potential Errata. Clearly there are folks with different perspectives about it. Most tables I have seen still treat it as a rank one spell.
As an aside,
In the PC1 book, they also altered how bomb splash damage works. Instead of hitting the full splash AoE on Strike miss, now only the initial target is splashed. (IMO it's a good spot for a nerf that *should* let Paizo improve the Alch in other ways)
I don't know where you are getting this from, the GM core says this about the splash trait:
Most bombs also have the splash trait. When you use a thrown weapon with the splash trait, you don’t add your Strength modifier to the damage roll. If an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target (including the target) take the listed splash damage. On a critical failure, the bomb misses entirely, dealing no damage. Add splash damage together with the initial damage against the target before applying the target’s resistance or weakness. You don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit.
In the PC1 book, they also altered how bomb splash damage works. Instead of hitting the full splash AoE on Strike miss, now only the initial target is splashed. (IMO it's a good spot for a nerf that *should* let Paizo improve the Alch in other ways)
I don't know where you are getting this from, the GM core says this about the splash trait:
Most bombs also have the splash trait. When you use a thrown weapon with the splash trait, you don’t add your Strength modifier to the damage roll. If an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target (including the target) take the listed splash damage. On a critical failure, the bomb misses entirely, dealing no damage. Add splash damage together with the initial damage against the target before applying the target’s resistance or weakness. You don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit.
Idk how to phrase this in a manner that prevents a passive-aggressive reading, but I would like to recommend slowing down / re-reading a bit.
I said that the GM book has the old wording. It's the PC1 book that changed splash to not hit the full AoE on miss, and now only splashes the Strike target. That is what I mean by "contradiction." Paizo literally published contradictory rules between the PC and GM remaster books. If you want to pull your hair out, compare the two glossaries and see how different they are without any form of disclaimer on which is the full/real definition.
Pg 292 of the PC1 book, Alchemical Gear: Alchemical Bombs.
Splash affects the Strike target on miss or better. Splash affects the target and all 5ft from the target on hit or better. (not a direct quote)
The fact that someone forgot to update bombs + splash in the GM core book is the contradiction I spoke of (and it's a surprisingly amateur mistake by Paizo), and why I suspect that Grease is intended to be changed into an R3 spell.
There's no way to "accidentally" change the splash mechanic with newly written rule text.
And while it's possible for Grease's contradiction to have been a copy/paste in the wrong spot, the context of Grease in specific being mechanically far above the rest of the R1 spells, leads me to think it was not an accident to put Grease as an R3.
It might be that perhaps a not-final pdf was sent to the printers. Not joking, and honestly that might be less harmful from a professionalism standpoint than if Paizo did not find/check for such errors.
That is an interesting catch. It could definitely mean the alchemist is in for an accuracy boost if it is the new rule. It also makes existing alchemists unplayable until the player core 2 is released so they maybe don’t want to draw attention to it until the full new class is out…or it is a potential change that was considered but not meant to see publication.