Hmm... I don't agree.
In a straight up fight between the swashbuckler and the fighter in a featureless arena, the fighter should win. That's all the fighter does. The fighter does not get Bluff or Diplomacy. The fighter does not get improvisational weapon use or armorless defense powers. The fighter does not get more skill points. The fighter gets to fight. That's it. Ergo, he should be better at it.
If you insist on a Fighter-BAB, then the abilities that you give the Swashbuckler had better not be any better than those that a paladin or ranger or barbarian gets. Say that you are fine with ditching spells, even little spell use like paladins and rangers (I personally wouldn't go this route, since I think that in a magical campaign, swashbucklers are gonna have spells -- but that's just me). That gives you a bit more leeway. But you're still gonna have to pick and choose.
Over in the other thread, the modding vs. multiclassing thread, Geoff somebody got dinged because he said that people wanted their class to fight as well as the fighter but have better skills. I think he might have been referring to people here.
Really, a major part of this is that we're all thinking about different swashbucklers. Some people see the swashbuckler as this unbeatable warrior, and I don't really see that at all. I see him as a guy who doesn't win in the straight up fight against a guy who does nothing but train for combat -- but who also never gets into that fight in the first place, because he's got tricks up his sleeve. For my swashbuckler, a bard or rogue with a few levels of fighter is just peachy, and I'd also be fine with dropping many of my fighter bonus feats in exchange for Cha-bonus to defense and improvisational weapons use (Hong: Heh) and a few more skills and skill points.
