So, I've noticed in a couple places like angelic aspect, greater, spells and other things where there are multiple versions of an effect that references the lowest version but also passively includes intermediary effects. Case in point:
This spell functions like lesser angelic aspect, except you gain lowlight vision; darkvision 60 feet; DR 10/evil; immunity to acid, cold, and petrification; resistance to electricity 10 and fire 10; a +4 racial bonus on saves against poison; and protective aura and truespeech as supernatural abilities for the duration of the spell. Also, your wings give you a fly speed of 60 feet with good maneuverability.
Protective aura provides a +4 deflection bonus to AC and a +4 resistance bonus on saving throws against attacks made or effects created by evil creatures to anyone within 20 feet. Otherwise, it functions as a magic circle against evil and a lesser globe of invulnerability, both with a radius of 20 feet.
Truespeech allows you to speak with any creature that has a language, as though using the tongues spell.
You take on an aspect of an angelic being, including some of its physical characteristics. You gain lowlight vision, resistance to acid 5, resistance to cold 5, and the benefits of protection from evil.
Note the lack of wings in the lesser description. They only get included in the intermediary angelic aspect spell.
Can we get a stated general rule that effects with graduation are cumulative?
I'm pretty sure the sentence you bolded about the wings is referencing the middle version, even though it doesn't explicitly say that.
Seems to me this is just an accidental omission that doesn't require a general rule - just a GM who is capable of making reasonable interpretations of the rules.
It might be a good candidate for an erratum.
I don't think we need a stated general rule that says "Read all the spells, mate".
"Read the spells, mate" doesn't say lesser grants wings. I agree it's an omission. A categorical clarification via FAQ would simply be an easy reference to clear up questions without needing a half dozen errata entries.
Yeah, it looks like a bug. If the Greater spell referred to the "middle" spell, and the middle spell referred to the Lesser spell, it'd be fine. As is, it's just an error.
By "bug" and "error" you mean it's just an accidental omission, right?
The intent is clear - the mid-level version gives you angelic wings and the greater version improves them.
Yeah, it looks like a bug. If the Greater spell referred to the "middle" spell, and the middle spell referred to the Lesser spell, it'd be fine. As is, it's just an error.By "bug" and "error" you mean it's just an accidental omission, right?
The intent is clear - the mid-level version gives you angelic wings and the greater version improves them.
I would agree, however, the middle version allows: "In addition, your natural weapons and any weapons you wield are considered good-aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."
But the Greater version doesn't say anything about this. So if Greater referenced Middle, and Middle referenced Lesser, then Greater would overcome damage reduction, but as it is worded, the Greater version does not.
If you assume RAI is the Greater > Middle > Lesser interpretation then the Greater allows you to overcome damage reduction.
RAW, Greater does not let you overcome damage reduction.
I believe RAI > RAW, but expect table variance.