Let’s Get Compatible!

I guess it's beyond the scope of day 1 errata but a bit disappointed there was no change to psychic refocusing. IME it was a key part of the class' power pre-remaster.

Not sure if you've seen it, but Sayre has said that this was just an incidental power boost:

Amps, unleashes, and psyche actions are what psychics get instead of a third spell slot per level; their Focus Point advantage is a largely incidental boost meant to ensure they have enough resource that their amps feel and function as a more essential part of their kit than their spell slots.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/17ox39r/comment/k83isd5/?utm _source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

In the Player Core, Rogues are listed as getting a "crit success on a success" when they get expert in fortitude. Was this intentional or just something that was missed in the errata pass?

I support this question. It doesn't seem in accordance with what Paizo put out in the past and feels like a mistake that SHOULD get addressed ASAP

That incidental power boost sounds a lot like a completely intentional one. Don't know the point he was making.

Squiggit wrote:

I guess it's beyond the scope of day 1 errata but a bit disappointed there was no change to psychic refocusing. IME it was a key part of the class' power pre-remaster.

Not sure if you've seen it, but Sayre has said that this was just an incidental power boost:

M. Sayre wrote:

Amps, unleashes, and psyche actions are what psychics get instead of a third spell slot per level; their Focus Point advantage is a largely incidental boost meant to ensure they have enough resource that their amps feel and function as a more essential part of their kit than their spell slots.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/17ox39r/comment/k83isd5/?utm _source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

It wasn't really though.

Aaron Shanks wrote:

Dancing Wind wrote:

we also have some errata for those books.

Are the errata in the PDFs being released today?

Or will those PDFs be updated at a later time?

Errata in the PDFs are not being released at this time. We need more time to collect, process and copyfit, which is generally driven by the reprinting physical books.

Any chance in the short time while we wait on the main PDF's to be updated. That we can have all the errata made into a single pdf or even txt file that we can download? That would be a lot more handy that having to check the web page.

Just do what I do... Print to PDF.

Errata in the PDFs are not being released at this time. We need more time to collect, process and copyfit, which is generally driven by the reprinting physical books.

Didn't you guys have some big announcement before about NOT tying errata to physical book reprints? You're going to have to do it eventually (especially these books, you know they will get a reprint), so why? This is the digital age. I get it's more time/money, but it improves the gameplay experience and this is a huge milestone for Paizo, so why not do it right?

Edit: I get that putting out a Day 1 Errata is a good step, but it's largely b/c of needing to fix the rush job (like a Day 1 Patch of a new release video game). It's appreciated, and Paizo did an amazing job getting these books out in the time they did. Very happy overall, just having a book (or pdf) that requires a separate source to work properly, is pretty frustrating. Having a corrected PDF out sooner than later would help a lot.

On the note of errata, I see AoN isn't updated yet. Will it reflect the errata? I hope.

Amped Figment is drastically inferior to Amped Dancing Lights and represents a serious nerf to Tangible Dream if you go with that.

Especially because Figment requires CHA investment and Psychic is supposed to be a class that works for Cha OR Int, but even beyond that - providing a single attack of flanking with a sustain, with the requirement that you don't fail Create a Diversion (which probably doesn't help you much anyways either, depending on your spell selection)... it doesn't feel comparable to a 120' range AoE flashbang spell. I've gotten so much mileage out of just opening any fight by throwing Dazzled onto half the enemies, basically always negates an attack or two (and in one memorable instance... a boss critically failed and lost two turns to Fascinated and then Dazzled basically)

I have an oscillating wave psychic, and this is super cool. The change to Frostbite means one cantrip is a spell attack and the other a fort save, adding nice versatility (complicated in a fun way by the OW mechanic), and the reach on ignition is sweet, as the 2d6 melee damage is now available for everyone casting normal ignition but only the psychic (well, or a magus with a reach weapon?) doesn't have to get super up close to take advantage of that.

But... amped ignition's damage remains 1d10 ranged and 1d12 melee (plus the 1 fire splash damage)... making the base damage for melee less than the unamped version. This feels like it might be an oversight? Feels strange that the melee damage roll would decrease. I know that 1d10 vs 2d4 (and even vs 1d4 + bonus as it was with produce flame) is potentially less damage, but it's also potentially more. With the melee version now, it's just straight less. So if you're doing it for the splash damage, not much incentive to get in close. Feel like the amped melee version should at least still be 2d6 damage (plus splash).

It’s a small thing, but I like that Baba Yaga’s Spirit Object buff means my object (puppet) familiar can pack a bigger punch.

Aaron Shanks wrote:

Errata in the PDFs are not being released at this time. We need more time to collect, process and copyfit, which is generally driven by the reprinting physical books.

Didn't you guys have some big announcement before about NOT tying errata to physical book reprints? You're going to have to do it eventually (especially these books, you know they will get a reprint), so why? This is the digital age. I get it's more time/money, but it improves the gameplay experience and this is a huge milestone for Paizo, so why not do it right?

Edit: I get that putting out a Day 1 Errata is a good step, but it's largely b/c of needing to fix the rush job (like a Day 1 Patch of a new release video game). It's appreciated, and Paizo did an amazing job getting these books out in the time they did. Very happy overall, just having a book (or pdf) that requires a separate source to work properly, is pretty frustrating. Having a corrected PDF out sooner than later would help a lot.

On the note of errata, I see AoN isn't updated yet. Will it reflect the errata? I hope.

It was not aabout updating the PDF, but about updating the Errata web page. That just got updated with tons of Errata today.

It's way easier for them to update the simple web page that doesn'T need copyfit nor layouting.
Updating the PDF require a LOT more work, and that work needs time. That they don't have right now.
Heck, even these errata/compatibility patches took them a couple months of work. And they have been crunching long hours of stressful work this year... they just didn'T have the bandwidth for more.

So we can't keep using the old spells because you chose to errata them. I wish that was a surprise.

It’s a small thing, but I like that Baba Yaga’s Spirit Object buff means my object (puppet) familiar can pack a bigger punch.

It's fairly minor as buffs go - 2d4 is +1 damage over spell mod at level 1 on average, but yeah.

So...Discarded Heritage Fleshwarp says:

The biomancers and mutagenists who warped your form labeled you a “discard on discovery”—a euphemism for destroying you on sight. An anomaly among anomalies, your body stubbornly repudiates the efforts of fleshcrafters seeking to mold you to their grandiose visions, and your immune responses blunt the worst effects of unwanted fleshwarping attempts. If you roll a success on a saving throw against a transmutation effect, you get a critical success instead.

With schools gone, what does that do now?

(My suggestion would be to have the saving throw effect on effects with the Morph or Polymorph traits.)

Upon rereading the Champion errata, it's not really clear what happens with Causes.

The only information is that Causes are "no longer as strictly proscribed by alignment."

Can you now make a Paladin of Calistria or a Liberator of Abadar??

Upon rereading the Champion errata, it's not really clear what happens with Causes.

The only information is that Causes are "no longer as strictly proscribed by alignment."

Can you now make a Paladin of Calistria or a Liberator of Abadar??

As long as their edicts and anathemas aren't in strict conflict with the causes, anything goes now as far as I can tell.

So we can't keep using the old spells because you chose to errata them. I wish that was a surprise.

Which old spells were you particularly keen on that weren't simply caught up in the [+mod] patch? Because, like, there's a few, but I feel like it was probably unrealistic to expect then to ignore the +mod spells when unifying those was an explicit goal for spell balance in the Remaster.

The spell I saw most people taking assurance that it would still be available - Shocking Grasp - doesn't seem to have been affected by this errata.

Truthfully, I'm glad that they chose not to leave a bunch of weird outliers wrt to the +mod thing.

Dragonborn3 wrote:

So we can't keep using the old spells because you chose to errata them. I wish that was a surprise.

Which old spells were you particularly keen on that weren't simply caught up in the [+mod] patch? Because, like, there's a few, but I feel like it was probably unrealistic to expect then to ignore the +mod spells when unifying those was an explicit goal for spell balance in the Remaster.

The spell I saw most people taking assurance that it would still be available - Shocking Grasp - doesn't seem to have been affected by this errata.

Truthfully, I'm glad that they chose not to leave a bunch of weird outliers wrt to the +mod thing.

How are we supposed to use the old spells if we want to when they are making them into the Remaster spells though? We might have the old books, but then people are coming to the same game with very different books. We have the PDFs, but we can't choose to update only the parts we want so now we need multiple pdfs of the same thing. Online resources will change to match the errata even if they said they'd toggle the Remaster because the errata is not the Remaster.

I'm glad for the cantrip updates, but they still need a bit more. Every other caster has a 'Focus' feat at level 12. Psychics still have to wait until level 18 for Deepest Wellspring. Especially if they want to use focus spells from other classes as their baseline "Refocus for 2" is conditional on only casting amps. Ironically, they are the worst at casting focus spells from then on.

Yes, that's the one thing I'd have loved to see clarification for. Especially since the suggested way to adjust existing classes in the Remaster Core Preview is to remove that level 18 feat and give all the power to the level 12 feat that Psychic doesn't even have.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Dragonborn3 wrote:

So we can't keep using the old spells because you chose to errata them. I wish that was a surprise.

Which old spells were you particularly keen on that weren't simply caught up in the [+mod] patch? Because, like, there's a few, but I feel like it was probably unrealistic to expect then to ignore the +mod spells when unifying those was an explicit goal for spell balance in the Remaster.

The spell I saw most people taking assurance that it would still be available - Shocking Grasp - doesn't seem to have been affected by this errata.

Truthfully, I'm glad that they chose not to leave a bunch of weird outliers wrt to the +mod thing.

How are we supposed to use the old spells if we want to when they are making them into the Remaster spells though? We might have the old books, but then people are coming to the same game with very different books. We have the PDFs, but we can't choose to update only the parts we want so now we need multiple pdfs of the same thing. Online resources will change to match the errata even if they said they'd toggle the Remaster because the errata is not the Remaster.

Are we absolutely certain that the Archives and/or Foundry, despite a stated intent to separates Post- and Pre-Remaster rules, has decided that they will definitely apply something called a "Remaster Compatibility" Errata to the non-remaster versions of their rules sets? Is that a thing we know will happen? Because it would be weird if they did the opposite of what they said they'd do, and I can agree with you that it would be pretty frustrating.

Can't speak for the PDFs though.

Addendum: For clarification, my first post was under the mindset of someone wanting to use the Remaster rules but keep using the +mod cantrips. I have no horse in the race for "I don't want to update to the Remaster" but still I hope it's not too difficult for those who do fall in that camp.

Called it about wounded, get not rekt scrubs.
A bit sad that a non sanctified champion is impossible, guess i gotta wait for core 2

I have an oscillating wave psychic, and this is super cool. The change to Frostbite means one cantrip is a spell attack and the other a fort save, adding nice versatility (complicated in a fun way by the OW mechanic), and the reach on ignition is sweet, as the 2d6 melee damage is now available for everyone casting normal ignition but only the psychic (well, or a magus with a reach weapon?) doesn't have to get super up close to take advantage of that.

But... amped ignition's damage remains 1d10 ranged and 1d12 melee (plus the 1 fire splash damage)... making the base damage for melee less than the unamped version. This feels like it might be an oversight? Feels strange that the melee damage roll would decrease. I know that 1d10 vs 2d4 (and even vs 1d4 + bonus as it was with produce flame) is potentially less damage, but it's also potentially more. With the melee version now, it's just straight less. So if you're doing it for the splash damage, not much incentive to get in close. Feel like the amped melee version should at least still be 2d6 damage (plus splash).

You have a point but yet it's not a big difference to me. The real advantage of AMPed version of these cantrips was the Heightening that still working good.

Great work on getting the champion and magus stuff out so quickly!

I was hoping for a mention of the Undead Master archtype which currently has 'evil alignment' as it's prerequisite, but looks like Book of the Dead hasn't had any errata yet.

I think I'll go with 'can't be holy' as the prerequisite for now, as requiring unholy would mean only clerics and paladins could take it, and the santification sidebar specifically mentions that holy characters often fight undead (even though none of the anctification mechanics specifically target undead).

not sure how paizo will take this chance to fix arcane cascade

it was pretty much the worst part of magus

not essential since magus function well without it

Congrats to all of us by the way!
Now back to playing and discussing.

So we can't keep using the old spells because you chose to errata them. I wish that was a surprise.

Well, honestly, to me it was. Now we can't even have our reliable low-level cantrips for a little more...

not sure how paizo will take this chance to fix arcane cascade

it was pretty much the worst part of magus

not essential since magus function well without it

They fixed it and it's neccessary for certain abilities. And we are very much in disagreement about it being the worse part of the magus.

Great work on getting the champion and magus stuff out so quickly!

I was hoping for a mention of the Undead Master archtype which currently has 'evil alignment' as it's prerequisite, but looks like Book of the Dead hasn't had any errata yet.

I think I'll go with 'can't be holy' as the prerequisite for now, as requiring unholy would mean only clerics and paladins could take it, and the santification sidebar specifically mentions that holy characters often fight undead (even though none of the anctification mechanics specifically target undead).

Book of the dead seems hard to errata. Since how do you decide if an undead is unholy? Especially since you cannot be holy and unholy, I'm sure Paizo does not want to cause headaches for PCs whose holy cleric of Sarenrae gets vampirized.

But fingers crossed for us getting an errata eventually

I kind of like that you now need different things to fight undead (vitality damage) than you do fiends (holy trait).

I think the mention of holy people fighting undead in the sanctification sidebar is somewhat misleading, as sanctification doesn't really interact with undead. The only link is that holy characters likely have more access to vitality damage.

Plus, Pharasma is THE anti-undead goddess and she doesn't allow sanctification at all.

EDIT: You can be a holy champion of Pharasma still from the errata's exception.

Amped Figment is drastically inferior to Amped Dancing Lights and represents a serious nerf to Tangible Dream if you go with that.

Especially because Figment requires CHA investment and Psychic is supposed to be a class that works for Cha OR Int, but even beyond that - providing a single attack of flanking with a sustain, with the requirement that you don't fail Create a Diversion (which probably doesn't help you much anyways either, depending on your spell selection)... it doesn't feel comparable to a 120' range AoE flashbang spell. I've gotten so much mileage out of just opening any fight by throwing Dazzled onto half the enemies, basically always negates an attack or two (and in one memorable instance... a boss critically failed and lost two turns to Fascinated and then Dazzled basically)

Go check the PFS sanctioning note about how to use it for either cover or concealment. That plus the moveable sustain amp is pretty good defensively.

Amped Figment is drastically inferior to Amped Dancing Lights and represents a serious nerf to Tangible Dream if you go with that.

Especially because Figment requires CHA investment and Psychic is supposed to be a class that works for Cha OR Int, but even beyond that - providing a single attack of flanking with a sustain, with the requirement that you don't fail Create a Diversion (which probably doesn't help you much anyways either, depending on your spell selection)... it doesn't feel comparable to a 120' range AoE flashbang spell. I've gotten so much mileage out of just opening any fight by throwing Dazzled onto half the enemies, basically always negates an attack or two (and in one memorable instance... a boss critically failed and lost two turns to Fascinated and then Dazzled basically)

Honestly, I'm going to miss the *non*amped altered Dancing Lights. Having 4 independently mobile light sources was really helpful in Exploration Mode.

Arcane shroud was nerfed rather badly. More flexibility in what you cast but the spell now only lasts until the end of your next turn at best. It used to be end of your next turn or the spell's duration, whichever is longer.

Particularly galling as it was marked as a remaster clarification rather than a fix/nerf!

Champions add holy or unholy trait (as appropriate) to all strikes now? Well, that's a thing.

That's my favorite part of this compatibility shift. I've been hoping for something like this a long time. I'm fine with champions having lower damage in general, but their options for doing more damage to fiends were too narrow and too high level. Now champions just smite things.

Now several of those later options have gotten a gross nerf-- they now only deal damage to unholy creatures, which is a narrower subset than evil creatures were. Divine eidolons got a similar nerf. You can just skip those options, though, and hopefully they get buffed in PC2. Overall the champion came out ahead here.

Causes got a little funky. Weird that they put "don't hurt innocents" as an edict instead of "harm innocents" as an Anethema. We also lost a little nuance about not needing to prevent potential harm far off in the future, but that's probably a space thing.

I'm hoping PC3 gives us way to play non-sanctified paladins of Pharasma. Redeemer was always a poor fit for the Lady of Graves. There are other examples like that as well.

MGD1981 wrote:

I have an oscillating wave psychic, and this is super cool. The change to Frostbite means one cantrip is a spell attack and the other a fort save, adding nice versatility (complicated in a fun way by the OW mechanic), and the reach on ignition is sweet, as the 2d6 melee damage is now available for everyone casting normal ignition but only the psychic (well, or a magus with a reach weapon?) doesn't have to get super up close to take advantage of that.

But... amped ignition's damage remains 1d10 ranged and 1d12 melee (plus the 1 fire splash damage)... making the base damage for melee less than the unamped version. This feels like it might be an oversight? Feels strange that the melee damage roll would decrease. I know that 1d10 vs 2d4 (and even vs 1d4 + bonus as it was with produce flame) is potentially less damage, but it's also potentially more. With the melee version now, it's just straight less. So if you're doing it for the splash damage, not much incentive to get in close. Feel like the amped melee version should at least still be 2d6 damage (plus splash).

You have a point but yet it's not a big difference to me. The real advantage of AMPed version of these cantrips was the Heightening that still working good.

No, it's not a huge difference. You're right, it's not as big a deal when heightened. I just suspected it might be an oversight. And I also realized this morning that the language in the errata for Oscillating Wave amped Ignition says "When using amped produce flame as a melee attack" -- they clearly just copy-pasted from produce flame, which makes me wonder if that sentence was supposed to be something different (besides just the spell name).

It was not aabout updating the PDF, but about updating the Errata web page. That just got updated with tons of Errata today.
Publishing Errata =/= Updating the PDF.

It's way easier for them to update the simple web page that doesn'T need copyfit nor layouting.
Updating the PDF require a LOT more work, and that work needs time. That they don't have right now.

Well I wouldn't be surprised if someone in Paizo was keeping an "updated PDF" file with the errata dynamically changed as errors are discovered. But as a company policy I doubt they would want to *publish* that updated PDF for a while. Right now the community is finding new misprints etc. practically every day. They'll want to wait until those new finds taper off, which may be a signal that all the obvious misprints at least have been found. *Only then* do you do the new typesetting etc. on the file in preparation for a new PDF release.

So realistically I wouldn't expect an updated PDF until January at least - maybe much later if right now they are 'all hands on deck' for Player Core 2.

I knew it. That wounded condition each failed check was too lethal and I like a lethal game.

House rules are a thing.

Didn't you guys have some big announcement before about NOT tying errata to physical book reprints? You're going to have to do it eventually (especially these books, you know they will get a reprint), so why? This is the digital age. I get it's more time/money, but it improves the gameplay experience and this is a huge milestone for Paizo, so why not do it right?

Because it's more time/money. Because Paizo is a company, and companies are ever-hungry beasts that run entirely on money and must constantly be fed if you don't want them to die. Because this work is done by real people, and those people have to eat and pay rent. Because the process of re-formatting everything based on textual adjustments while keeping it up to Paizo publication standards is actually not trivial.

The whole point is that the errata aren't tied to book reprints. That's why we're able to get this errata at all. The PDF changes are tied to book reprints. There's a big difference.

Upon rereading the Champion errata, it's not really clear what happens with Causes.

The only information is that Causes are "no longer as strictly proscribed by alignment."

Can you now make a Paladin of Calistria or a Liberator of Abadar??

If they allow Holy sanctification? Yes. Is it a good idea? Depends. Edict/Anathema conflicts are maybe not great.

I kind of like that you now need different things to fight undead (vitality damage) than you do fiends (holy trait).

I think the mention of holy people fighting undead in the sanctification sidebar is somewhat misleading, as sanctification doesn't really interact with undead. The only link is that holy characters likely have more access to vitality damage.

Plus, Pharasma is THE anti-undead goddess and she doesn't allow sanctification at all.

EDIT: You can be a holy champion of Pharasma still from the errata's exception.

I suspect the only reason that abilities aren't specifically mentioning undead is because they're going to have a blanket Unholy trait applied to them, much as they were blanket evil, with a few exceptions, previously. Granted, the same argument could be made for fiends, so I plop it more in the camp of confusing than misleading.

If they allow Holy sanctification? Yes. Is it a good idea? Depends. Edict/Anathema conflicts are maybe not great.

Hey now, I'll have you know that for the glorious 15 minutes before they lose their powers, the Antipaladins of Irori are a sight to behold!

This is such a treat - especially the functional errata for Magus, Psychic, etc.

Thanks team!

The first errata I am calling for...the credits for the illustration attached to this thread!

They already are, they’re under the picture. Jessé Suursoo

I had the same initial reaction, but then I realized the full quote is:

Illustartion by Jessé Suursoo

I believe that's what they were poking fun at.

Illustartion is a portmanteau of "Illustration" and "start" meaning "the first illustration" or "the illustration at the start." Jason Keely just had his mind perfectly balanced when he wrote the blog post.

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Amped Figment is drastically inferior to Amped Dancing Lights and represents a serious nerf to Tangible Dream if you go with that.

Especially because Figment requires CHA investment and Psychic is supposed to be a class that works for Cha OR Int, but even beyond that - providing a single attack of flanking with a sustain, with the requirement that you don't fail Create a Diversion (which probably doesn't help you much anyways either, depending on your spell selection)... it doesn't feel comparable to a 120' range AoE flashbang spell. I've gotten so much mileage out of just opening any fight by throwing Dazzled onto half the enemies, basically always negates an attack or two (and in one memorable instance... a boss critically failed and lost two turns to Fascinated and then Dazzled basically)

Honestly, I'm going to miss the *non*amped altered Dancing Lights. Having 4 independently mobile light sources was really helpful in Exploration Mode.

Since the new Light cantrip is basically a merger of the old Light and Dancing Lights cantrips, it seems odd to me that Tangible Dream didn't just get an improved and amp-able version of Light in place of Dancing Lights. Figment seems thematically out of place to me.

Elfteiroh wrote:

It was not aabout updating the PDF, but about updating the Errata web page. That just got updated with tons of Errata today.
Publishing Errata =/= Updating the PDF.

It's way easier for them to update the simple web page that doesn'T need copyfit nor layouting.
Updating the PDF require a LOT more work, and that work needs time. That they don't have right now.

Well I wouldn't be surprised if someone in Paizo was keeping an "updated PDF" file with the errata dynamically changed as errors are discovered. But as a company policy I doubt they would want to *publish* that updated PDF for a while. Right now the community is finding new misprints etc. practically every day. They'll want to wait until those new finds taper off, which may be a signal that all the obvious misprints at least have been found. *Only then* do you do the new typesetting etc. on the file in preparation for a new PDF release.

So realistically I wouldn't expect an updated PDF until January at least - maybe much later if right now they are 'all hands on deck' for Player Core 2.

I would be surprised, cause that's not how their PDF building pipeline work. It's more complicated than that. :P

Given Tangible Dream has Imaginary Weapon, I doubt they're much worried about the fact they're nerfing its other cantrip.

Plus amped Figment and Imaginary Weapon actually have synergy, since Imaginary Weapon can benefit from the flanking figment.

Appreciate the fast work on an errata!

Though I’m curious why the legacy witch patrons like mosquito witch were left out of getting a familiar ability? Oversight maybe?

Given Tangible Dream has Imaginary Weapon, I doubt they're much worried about the fact they're nerfing its other cantrip.

Plus amped Figment and Imaginary Weapon actually have synergy, since Imaginary Weapon can benefit from the flanking figment.

Not everyone wants to run into melee range with a 6 HP spellcaster! Imaginary Weapon's always been a bit of a puzzle, and Figment doesn't really change the fundamental question of using it I feel.

It's a pretty big difference in utility - as noted, why not just make it Amped Light and maintain the existing functionality like Oscillating Wave did with the new fire/ice cantrips. That flashbomb effect is part of what sold me on the conscious mind in the first place because I didn't feel like trying to make Imaginary Weapon work (and wanted Astral Rain).

Not everyone wants to run into melee range with a 6 HP spellcaster! Imaginary Weapon's always been a bit of a puzzle, and Figment doesn't really change the fundamental question of using it I feel.

I don't disagree, but the devs seem pretty dead set on Tangible Dream being the "I'm in melee with 6 HP" spec.

Any psychic that wants to use imaginary weapon aught to be using spectral hand. It's damn good then.

theWasp wrote:

I kind of like that you now need different things to fight undead (vitality damage) than you do fiends (holy trait).

I think the mention of holy people fighting undead in the sanctification sidebar is somewhat misleading, as sanctification doesn't really interact with undead. The only link is that holy characters likely have more access to vitality damage.

Plus, Pharasma is THE anti-undead goddess and she doesn't allow sanctification at all.

EDIT: You can be a holy champion of Pharasma still from the errata's exception.

I suspect the only reason that abilities aren't specifically mentioning undead is because they're going to have a blanket Unholy trait applied to them, much as they were blanket evil, with a few exceptions, previously. Granted, the same argument could be made for fiends, so I plop it more in the camp of confusing than misleading.

I think the unholy trait matters for undead because of things like holy light (formerly searing light) and some of the quasi remastered paladin feats which are meant to deal extra damage to undead even if they don't trigger weaknesses.

Edit: But the fiend trait does include a holy weakness? Weird.

I peeped the monster creation rules in GM core today. I'm pretty sure they missed a few things on the trait abilities section, like devils having holy weaknesses but not demons or daemons. Either it is an oversight or sanctified will impact far fewer creatures than I anticipated.