I think it goes too far.
I don't disagree with Rose's edit reason at all:
I've tried to simplify it down a bit while maintaining relevancy - all questions and examples are relevant to combat in a Vampire: the Masquerade setting and deserve an answer.
But this simplification needs to come from the OP, because the extent of re-wording borders on (in my opinion) 'putting words in the OPs mouth'.
There is a balance between the OP getting what they want out of a question and making something for the community to benefit from as well.
But I err on the side of the OP, and preserving their wording, letting them decide on the rewording. And if they can re-word it themselves it will be closer to their core issue and helps train users to ask more focused questions themselves.
Teach a user to edit...
I also feel like sticking to the old adage about teaching people to fish over giving free fish away (I mean, sometimes that's ok but it's the exception not the rule).
If the question was answerable in it's previous state, and Rose's edit's were just polishing it then there's no harm. But if the OP won't be getting an (acceptably good) answer (closed or not), then jumping ahead and making the edit for them isn't that helpful.
If the OP wants to go and re-use Rose's wording, great it's still there in the revision history. At the same time they can pick one core issue (whether it's multiple questions or not), and move the rest to another answer even better.
But for now, we can wait for it to be edited by the user. There's no time limit on when a question can be re-opened. Lets wait and see what happens.