Is it acceptable to "improve" outdated answers by mixing rule changes and errata?

Question

The issue I stumbled upon today is regarding the following Q&A : Can you combine Polearm Master with War Caster to cast Booming Blade as enemies approach?

Because of a rule change made later, the currently existing and upvoted answers are now wrong. This is fine, and it could make for a good bounty if there is a need for an updated answer, as far as I understand.

The problem I'm facing is regarding edits that mix up rules and errata. In this instance, there were two rules modifications that had to do with those answers :

• A 2020 errata made it so that Booming Blade has a range of self (thanks to Thomas Markov for pointing that out in the comments), which invalidates the entire answer's conclusion.

• A 2018 errata changed Polearm Master so that spears are now eligible for use with the feat. This does not change the answer's conclusion a lot, apart from adding it to the quarterstaff.

The proposed edit on both answers was to include the 2018 errata changes, without including the 2020 modifications. It seems logical to not include the 2020 modifications, since they would turn the entire answer on its head, but adding the 2018 changes makes it seem like the answer is still valid, only slightly differently because of that change.

The main issues I see with those edits is that they're seemingly "updated" versions of the answers, and could trick readers into thinking those are up-to-date answers, but which in reality are neither valid in their original context nor in the current context.

And so I got confronted with this dilemma : accept the edit as an "improvement" which is still outdated, but even more wrong as it picks certain errata'd rules and not others, or reject it as it does not improve the answer by any of the two standards it could be taken as.

(you could argue that it was valid for a short period of time, but the question was not asked nor answered during that timeframe, making it, in my humble opinion, invalid in this specific situation, unless stated otherwise in the answer for historical context)

For clarity, here is the timeline for this question :

• The question was asked before any of the aforementioned errata, and the answers at the time were correct.
• The 2018 errata was released, which added the spear as a valid weapon for Polearm Master. This did not invalidate the answers, although an edit could have been made to include the spear to the answers, alongside the quarterstaff.
• The 2020 errata was released, which changed the text of Booming Blade and thus invalidated the answers. At this point, the modification regarding spears did not matter anymore.
• An edit was proposed to include the spear to the answers, regarding the 2018 errata.

At the time I went for the reject option on the first edit, but started questioning this choice at the second edit, and that is why I'm here asking this to the community for the next time this dilemma might occur :

Is it acceptable to edit an answer by mixing rule changes and errata?

Answer 1

I think the best approach for this question and answer(s) is to just note the relevant dates they’re talking about

Just restrict the question to the rules as they existed then, and have questions about the latest version of the rules be a separate question (if desired). That cleanly handles the fact that the answer was correct at the time, and leaves a clean avenue for handling the updates.

In other cases—where things are less of a complete reversal—I’d update just the answer, splitting it into “current rules” and “rules at the time the question was asked.” The answerer still could do that with this question, but that seems like too large an edit for someone else to make.

Answer 2

Do nothing if the edition differentiates enough!

While errata for the asked edition make a better answer, you should never make a new answer based on a new edition or revision of the edition asked. There are several examples I can think of:

• dnd-3e and dnd-3.5e are very distinct
• dnd-5e (soon: dnd-5e-2014 and dnd-5e-2024) are just as distinct
• the-dark-eye-4e has (in German) two variants: the original published 4 (FanPro era) and the mid-life polished 4.1 (Pegasus era), which have at times quite some differences, so you must read carefully for which variant applies in the text.
• exalted-2e, has also two quite distinct flavors: Book as published (2), and applying the tome of errata (also at times called 2.5e). Careful parsing is required to see which one players use.
• shadowrun-sr4 also got a mid-life-glowup, at times known as SR4A, which uses the Anniversary Edition core book, which has at times some crucial rule differences.

Make a new answer, if Errata change the Answer!

Sometimes answers get outdated. Make your own, don't fix the old ones. Just because an answer is accepted, so it was as that was most helpful to the user when asked. If now the rules are different, you should lay out why the old answers are wrong because of the errata and lay out when they came out.