It's probably salvageable
The biggest problem with it is that we don't know if they're a DM or player (as #3 below), which makes it harder to write quality answers. But by itself, that's not actually a huge hurdle.
The other problem is that they've abandoned the question, which means (per below), that there some question about the value in salvaging it.
However, problem #2 identified below, which contributed to much of the appearance of problems with the question, appears to have been caused by a series of too-many-cooks editing errors, myself included in that set of editors. With that problem resolved as “not their fault” it's not actually a red flag. That means the remaining issues with the question are much more academic.
We can probably reopen this question. It only has one real problem, and that's not usually a problem that leads to a question being permanently closed.
The below is the answer as it stood before the editing error in the question's history was pointed out. Its discussion of the situation is still relevant apart from #2, but the above re-evaluates the weight of the other data in light of #2 being resolved, and arrives at a different conclusion.
Why it's closed (now)
There are three reasons for the close votes (judging by the current and removed comments, and the timeline of voting):
It didn't say what game it was about. This reason was fixed.
It linked to a D&D 3.5e spell, which is a red flag.
Linking to the wrong resource can imply many different possible problems with the question, non of which can be resolved except by the author. For example, they say they're playing 5e, but did they say “5e” to say they were playing 3.5e and not 3.0e? Perhaps they're playing D&D 5e, but the question only exists because they looked at the wrong game's rules — perhaps from the spell itself, or some other page for 3.5e connected to it?
The author resolving that issue could reveal that the problem is something entirely different than what can be gleaned from the existing question's text, making it impossible for us to guess.
They didn't say whether they were the DM or a player, which causes a difficulty when trying to write answers.
If they're the DM, then one possible answer (basically, “ask your DM”) becomes not-an-answer. If they're a player, then one possible answer (“you're the DM, you get to decide this for your world”) becomes invalid. Even for answers that aren't of that type, the kind of explanation that separates good answers from just-okay answers can be in how pointedly it addresses the specific situation of the asker — and we don't know what that is.
These aren't individually particularly lethal problems for a question, once #1 was resolved. We could make a reasonable guess at #2, and the answerers for #3 could just suffer the ambiguity and hedge their bets.
But all together, they're somewhat red flags. And one thing multiplies them: the asker abandoned the question. We asked for some basic clarifications, and they've never answered.
So though those two problems aren't unfixable, we don't have a way to fix them well.
Yes, the question could be useful for posterity, but rather than clean up an ambiguous, abandoned question so that new bet-hedging answers could be added, it's sometimes more valuable to let questions that the asker clearly doesn't care much about stay closed, so that some future asker who has a similar question that's clearer and that they won't abandon has a chance to ask, without it being closed as a duplicate of an old not-very-good question.
It's not quite a science why questions like this get or stay closed. It's more a fuzzy decision made by the emergent intelligence of the RPG Collective Consciousness, as given life through the voting mechanics. I can see why this one got held and stayed closed, and I mostly agree with it, at least enough to not want to super-reopen it.
My personal feeling is that abandoned questions don't merit the efforts to rehabilitate them, especially when it might shoot down a future, better question that a future user might honest ask. That future new-to-the-site user will have a better time if their (good, clear) question gets positive feedback, earns them rep, and gets clear answers, rather than being closed as a duplicate of an old, crummy question with answers that are trying their best but inherently hampered by the crumminess of the question.
What you can do
On the plus side, that emergent intelligence can be “asked” if maybe it'll reconsider its decision. My personal feeling on the question isn't necessarily shared. It can be asked by nominating it for reopening, either with a vote (for 3k+ users), a flag, or by editing it — which latter you've already done. Any of those will put it into the reopen review queue, putting it in front of voters again.
So regardless, we'll soon enough see what the Virtual Brain thinks.
