I think it's not worth it
It's probably most in keeping with the current approaches to questions on the stack, but (in this particular case) it seems like a solution which improves nothing beyond being conspicuously adherent to the currently dominant rules.
It's not really in question that
- The original post was asking for something off-topic to the stack (now, at least; I don't
recall the policy three years ago)
- The edit changes the nature of the question somewhat
- The question was edited in a manner that is not consistent with best
practices on the stack
But it doesn't seem to me that the top answers are not satisfactory answers to the question in its current form as well-- they sufficiently describe the bounded accuracy approach to 5e, and (some of) the mechanical consequences of that approach and consequences of abandoning it for older-style bonus ceilings.
If the question's current form is appropriate for the stack, and the highly-upvoted answers still answer it adequately, I'm not sure what is gained by asking that the entire endeavor be repeated. It feels to me like demanding that a duplicate question be posted, in service of preserving a question in a form that will necessarily be closed immediately.
I understand that closing questions has specific benefits to the stack in various situations, but I think that now (and in the recent past) we have experienced a shift towards more aggressive closures, sometimes on... shaky ground. We should not be looking for reasons to close questions, but rather looking for improvements which may be achieved through appropriate means, including closures. I appreciate all of the work that community members do in curating the site, but I have been increasingly feeling an overall vibe that seems, to me, to lean towards the former.
I'm interested in other users' opinions on whether or not reposting the current question (the one in a stack-allowable format) would be likely to draw different answers than it currently has, or, alternatively, if they feel the current answers have been invalidated by the edits. If so, I could probably be persuaded that this course of action is worthwhile. But otherwise this feels to me like demanding that a question say "half-dozen" instead of "six".
So in summary, my answer suggests a counter-question: What will be improved by doing this, beyond alleviating a technical-but-inconsequential policy violation?