Do you have a specific situation the people on the other forum are focusing on? Invisibility perhaps?
My particular thorn in the side has to do with the quoted text below...(was responding when I was informed of your post)
3) If they've already acted in combat, and you've hidden (or turned Invisible), and you then trip them (and so reveal yourself), then you are no longer hidden. So you can't follow up with a Sneak Attack with your free attack from Improved Trip. I guess if you managed to "Hide while attacking" (-20 penalty to Hide), then you could still be considered hidden while making the follow up attack(s).
The "as if you hadn't used your attack" doesn't mean you go back in time.
See, this is the one I still disagree with. When I think of the wording of this and the action economy, I think of the two things happening at the same time. The wording itself
does seem to almost imply going back in time if you look at the words at a purely semantic level, which makes me interpret them more as
one fluid motion. . . but semantically, "as if you hadn't", to me, implies "as if this thing hadn't happened".
Using the invisibility reference is understandable to a degree and it's what people have used to say it doesn't work in the past . . . but invisibility has no verbiage like "as if you hadn't".
You get sneak attack because something can't see you. Once it can see you, you no longer get that sneak attack . . . but what about if you're acting as if you hadn't revealed yourself?
Nothing has happened in between the trip and the attack.
The way I see it is:
You're invisible ---> you have SA ability
You trip ---> normally this reveals you
You have Improved Trip ---> You get an attack as though you hadn't made the trip ---> You're invisible for the attack you're making as if you hadn't made the trip.
Obviously the problem comes from the fact that the trip obviously reveals you . . . but I've always viewed that as a poor limitation of how the feat and status/ability are worded. I think, as intended, the SA is fine. I think, as written, the two aren't defined properly. I've always viewed improved trip as basically one fluid action, thus the trip and subsequent attack all benefit from the prior invisibility.
When you read the rules regarding sneak attack and standard invisibility, it makes sense. You're making multiple attacks. One attack reveals you, then you make another attack etc...there's no wording like, "all following attacks come as though the previous attack hadn't been made."