This is mainly inspired by Fire Emblem but I would love it if there was a class, archetype, or even prestige that allows one to operate a mobile ballista modeled after a bow or crossbow that you can customize to make it focus on speed, strength, endurance, or even make it balance between all 3! Of course they may have to dedicate an entire section to Ballistician exclusive weapons if this were to ever be the case.
I am not sure if modern firearms will make a return in Second Edition, or even if Paizo will consider the AP they came from in the first place, Rasputin Must Die!, and possibly other related APs canon, but it would be pretty rad if tanks at least made a return as one-man operated medieval devices.
Some refs for what a potential Ballistician could look like:
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/d/d5/Ballistician.png /revision/latest?cb=20150917112333
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/9/9c/FE14_Ballisticia n_%28Generic%29.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160507091323
Simply a class or archetype that specializes in making the most out of shields and tanking. They ignore most, if not all, penalties that comes with employing shields and in fact can even attach certain ones onto their armor for further tanking!Edit: Also 100th reply, yay!
Auguri! (You're Italian like me, right? The name seems to indicate you are).
Guarda che però i link non funzionano, mi pare. Riportano su questo thread.
Penso che la sentinella sarebbe un'ottima variante del guerriero, e la prima classe che menzioni mi piacerebbe vederla come un archetipo dell'alchimista... ce n'erano di bellissimi nella 1a edizione, tipo il tinkerer...
(If you're not Italian you're not gonna get much of what I wrote. Neither are you guys. I can explain if you want, but I'll ask for at least 1 Super Mario joke in payment XD ).
Okay from what I can make out, it looks like a sentinel type of alchemist archetype though since I am merely guessing based on a few root words i am probably wrong.
Well, no, I said the sentinel would be a perfect variant (archetype) for the fighter, and the ballistician had something vaguely similar in 1e, the tinkerer archetype for alchemists, which gave you a clockwork companion and the skill to build more and upgrade them... but good instincts!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Acrobatics, STRENGTH based class who can use verticality and charges with Polearms to great effect while wearing Heavy Armor with Class Abilities that cancel out Armor Check Penalties to Skills. They are anti-cavalry and flying creature specialists WITHOUT needing Magic Spells or Items to boost their martial prowess. They would be right up there with Rangers as the "Iconic Monster Hunters" of the world.
People have been homebrewing this Class for 25+ years now and I've YET to see a really well-done version yet. PLEASE!
Brother, I cannot agree enough. You don't have to call it dragoon and you can base it on something that is known for jumping/falling in pathfinder lore.
I want this so much. A cool jumping martial dude in heavy armor that probably ignores ACP to acrobatics.
Please paizo! I'll even take an archetype of this if I have to.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I generally agree with some of the folks here in that I don't want too many individual classes when we have so many options with the ability to add things like specific class feats and new archetypes that significantly change classes. That being said...
I've always wanted official support for two things:
1. A long range monk-type character that utilizes innate elemental attacks
The Kineticist is sort of this, and I think it would lend itself well to a new ground up class that does something different and unique, instead of being a weird monk/druid hybrid. I want to be an earthbender, dammit.
I think the simplified action system would lend itself very well to this type of class.
2. A constitution spellcaster
Something like an occult bloodmage would be pretty thematic for this. Tooling with the idea of temporary hit points and utilizing your own HP to cast spells is COOL. Might be a bit difficult to balance but risk and reward is always neat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, I've come up with something I want.
I want:
1) something like a magus who doesn't need armor, can use magic as warding/ac buff, but can also wield whatever weapon, *and* most of all gets their spells/powers from a pact not unlike the witch's. So something like a witch magus.
2) a barb who can go around unarmored. Maybe this can be done MCing in monk, that would be cool and good enough. If not, we need that istinct for barbs. Like now.
3) a monk who can use martial and advanced weapons. There was a magus archetype called a kensei (sword saint) - someone who didn't use a lot of spells, but whose skill with weapons was supernatural. I want a way to have a str-based monk who uses a yanyuedao, but in all other ways is a monk - no armor, cool martial arts, maybe a bit more hps... that kind of thing.
4) a shaman. Yes I know it's not a new class, what can I say, I want shamans. With a fire elemental wolf (I mean, a cool animal companion - but I could MC summoner for that, or something).
5) an engineer. A tinkerer. A scientist. An artificer. You know the archetype? The girl who reads a lot and can craft almost anything (alchemy, magic items, constructs, weaponry, Alkenstar clockwork...) and pass all recall knowledge checks and speak 10 languages and... yeah. That. A fricking genius, a polymath, a Renaissance woman/man.
Make it so, Paizo!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to ideas and themes from Ghostwalk I would like to see archetypes that can turn any class into a ghost/spirit class. And I would like a new class that plays up the ideas of a spirit interacting with material world.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now this is a real stretch I know but I want a dedicated class for.... with lack of a better word... creature.
Like a Summoner Eidolon, but as a stand-alone class.
I always feel there's a lack of non-humanoid representation among playables.
There's all sorts of tricks to get something truly weird and exotic such as Awakening but that requires a lot of workarounds as is.
Golarion, and most fantasy settings have so many non-humanoid creatures with equal or even better int scores than humans that could make for very interesting and unusual heroes.
A class that helps explore such design space would be a dream come true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now this is a real stretch I know but I want a dedicated class for.... with lack of a better word... creature.
Like a Summoner Eidolon, but as a stand-alone class.
I always feel there's a lack of non-humanoid representation among playables.There's all sorts of tricks to get something truly weird and exotic such as Awakening but that requires a lot of workarounds as is.
Golarion, and most fantasy settings have so many non-humanoid creatures with equal or even better int scores than humans that could make for very interesting and unusual heroes.A class that helps explore such design space would be a dream come true.
You want a monster, with a class that levels up the monster's abilities? — kind of like how Dragon PCs from 'In the company of Dragons' works?
I know I suggested it thinking of something based on the Synthesist looking for a shifter class, but a Synthesist that can't turn off and only has one fixed shape that improves with levels could maybe work for this also?
Or perhaps Savage Species from 3.5? Also, Dreamscarred Press has released a number of supplemental materials for monster races in PF 1e; Astral Deva comes to mind. I, too, would love monster classes again.
Reminds me of when I played a Gestalt Minotaur Fighter in the World's Largest Dungeon.
"I'm not locked in here with you! You're locked in here with me!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Related to monsterish classes, I hope there's something resembling the dragonfire adept. At the beginning of the playtest, I realized I couldn't possibly be getting that, because the ability to switch from an attack roll to a saving throw in order to avoid the MAP would be too strong for gishes.
And then touch attacks seem to have gone away and spells that were on the MAP now have saving throws instead, so apparently they don't mind. So now I want a class designed around spitting aoe directly into melee, with class abilities that change up the elemental damage, add status effects and debuffs, and maybe some interesting reactions. Oh, and can fly eventually, so likely restricted to light armor.
Making it about dragons would be stepping on WotC's too hard, but maybe it can be nature themed instead? Call it "Stormwalker" and make the default attack a summoned cone of sonic damage, that you can eventually sub out for fire, lightning, acid, etc?
I could also see it as an alternate path for the kineticist. Could even have a mental energy attack, to sort of tie the kineticist into the other psychic classes a little more strongly (that's probably a good idea anyways, even if it sticks with just kinetic blasts).
Going back to ideas and themes from Ghostwalk I would like to see archetypes that can turn any class into a ghost/spirit class. And I would like a new class that plays up the ideas of a spirit interacting with material world.
This is something I have been messing around with as well and want to see how well I can incorporate it with the fi al 2e rules.. The eidolon classes from Ghostwalk would make a fascinating any class archetype that would then lead to ghost themed class feats that can be tied to the different paths (poltergeist, haunt, dominator. Corrupter, ext). The dedication feat would have to pick a core path so if you take those powers you get a bonus effect kinda like druid orders. But you can pick and choose from any of the powers. You can also then incorporate the calling but making players who take more ghost feats then class feats suffer from the calling, allowing you to limit ghost feats taken while also making them much more powerful at time.
Require the ghost dedication to be a lv 2 feat and if you pick it up your last feat is retrained to it if you choose to come back is a ghost is how I would handle gaining the archetype imo.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really hoping for an Intelligence based Rogue Kit that specializes in knowledge and creative plans. Would also really love to see an "Engineer" kit for the Alchemist that focuses on crafting and invention, or maybe even its own Archetype.
Would also like to see a few commoner options as not everyone is going to have easy access to weapon / armor proficiencies or magic.
Actually, Roswynn said it better than I did. But pretty much this.
Hey, I've come up with something I want.
...
5) an engineer. A tinkerer. A scientist. An artificer. You know the archetype? The girl who reads a lot and can craft almost anything (alchemy, magic items, constructs, weaponry, Alkenstar clockwork...) and pass all recall knowledge checks and speak 10 languages and... yeah. That. A fricking genius, a polymath, a Renaissance woman/man.
Make it so, Paizo!
A class I have been thinking about recently that would be fun to port over is the 3/3.5 Jester, a master of improvised weapons, the man who always wins the bar fight (that isn't the monk). Someone who can play out the "Faceless Knight" Lancelot stories where he bludgeoned a man in full plate with a chair leg. I want a guy who can walk into Copper Tree, pick up LITERALLY ANYTHING, and then go and fend off a horde of goblins with it, maybe even a hobgoblin or 5. I want an Archer/MacGyver/anyone listed here type. I WANT THAT!
|
It could be called the Shifter and set a benchmark for spell-less shapeshifting classes!
I did not care for this benchmark as much as I had hoped. :(
edit: To contribute to the thread, I am really hoping to see a movement focused class. Something that gets parkour, a climb speed, etc as part of its kit.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish for a Face without spells. Able to wring secrets from the most cautious and parley in the middle of a fight
In general I'd like to see more non-magical classes that can invest heavily in mental stats and not feel like they're making some sort of at least small mistake in doing so.
|
|
I wish for a Face without spells. Able to wring secrets from the most cautious and parley in the middle of a fightIn general I'd like to see more non-magical classes that can invest heavily in mental stats and not feel like they're making some sort of at least small mistake in doing so.
We really only need this for Charisma. Wisdom and Intelligence reward investment pretty heavily already, actually.
We really only need this for Charisma. Wisdom and Intelligence reward investment pretty heavily already, actually.I wish for a Face without spells. Able to wring secrets from the most cautious and parley in the middle of a fightIn general I'd like to see more non-magical classes that can invest heavily in mental stats and not feel like they're making some sort of at least small mistake in doing so.
Honestly, right now a Charisma based Rogue with social skills in combat seems to be pretty fun to me and is likely the way I'll end up going. Charisma doesn't have to have a real impact in combat outside of using skills to manipulate people through your words and personality.
Compared with how much Wisdom and Intelligence come up in combat at least it's not a huge difference for me. Especially with being able to spread attribute boosts around a bit more than first edition Pathfinder.
Wisdom impacts perception which indirectly impacts initiative in most scenarios. Additionally, it can improve the Will saving throw.
Intelligence on the other hand normally only comes up for the Recall Knowledge and intelligence based casting skills. Yes, it can affect the number of trained skills that you have, but that is not a huge impact unless you're playing a very heavily skill based character.
Compared to Wisdom and Intelligence I'd argue that Charisma would probably fall between the two of them if you're going to be using social skills in combat.
Additionally, there are at least two classes right now that depend heavily on Charisma. Attempting to include additional combat functionality into the stat would give additional power to them that they weren't originally balanced around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We really only need this for Charisma. Wisdom and Intelligence reward investment pretty heavily already, actually.
Isn't the big reward for intelligence "you can hit the DCs for Arcana and Occultism rituals" which is essentially "you are a spellcaster on a longer timetable"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We really only need this for Charisma. Wisdom and Intelligence reward investment pretty heavily already, actually.Isn't the big reward for intelligence "you can hit the DCs for Arcana and Occultism rituals" which is essentially "you are a spellcaster on a longer timetable"?
Many different skills can be used for Ritual Casting. All of your modifiers will likely come into play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many different skills can be used for Ritual Casting. All of your modifiers will likely come into play.We really only need this for Charisma. Wisdom and Intelligence reward investment pretty heavily already, actually.Isn't the big reward for intelligence "you can hit the DCs for Arcana and Occultism rituals" which is essentially "you are a spellcaster on a longer timetable"?
But I mean, only craft, lore, society, arcana, and occultism key off intelligence. Lore probably isn't going to be part of a ritual, society seems unlikely, and craft is probably relegated to "rituals which produce crafted items." So all those other skills you use for rituals key off other stats, so if you are doing a ritual that needs a wis skill or a cha skill, you can just invest in those stats instead of intelligence.
After all there's a 3rd level general feat that puts you at trained-2 for every skill.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We really only need this for Charisma. Wisdom and Intelligence reward investment pretty heavily already, actually.Isn't the big reward for intelligence "you can hit the DCs for Arcana and Occultism rituals" which is essentially "you are a spellcaster on a longer timetable"?
I'd argue the primary benefit of high Int as twice as many Skills as everyone else (or, if a Rogue, just every Skill in the game). Rituals are nice, but Skills are very nice as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue the primary benefit of high Int as twice as many Skills as everyone else (or, if a Rogue, just every Skill in the game). Rituals are nice, but Skills are very nice as well.We really only need this for Charisma. Wisdom and Intelligence reward investment pretty heavily already, actually.Isn't the big reward for intelligence "you can hit the DCs for Arcana and Occultism rituals" which is essentially "you are a spellcaster on a longer timetable"?
The difference between someone who starts with 10 Int and someone who start with 18 Int is a total of 4 trained skills. Given the fact that you're not held under the same tight standard as PF1 where you would typically only invest into a single stat as you leveled up, Int is going to be much more likely to increase.
Additionally, once you get to 14 you can invest in a Potency item to raise a stat up to 18 which is really powerful for rounded characters.
Finally, there is a feat that you can take that lets you add your level to untrained skills and an archetype that does pretty much the same.
Int is a nice stat to invest into but I wouldn't put the usefulness of it higher than Cha and would argue that they could give each other a run for their money in different situations. Both would be good to have.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between someone who starts with 10 Int and someone who start with 18 Int is a total of 4 trained skills. Given the fact that you're not held under the same tight standard as PF1 where you would typically only invest into a single stat as you leveled up, Int is going to be much more likely to increase.
4 Trained Skills matters quite a bit when they base number of skills is around 5. That nearly doubles your Skills.
Additionally, once you get to 14 you can invest in a Potency item to raise a stat up to 18 which is really powerful for rounded characters.
Sure, but you only ever get one of them, so Int is not a usual choice for most characters in this regard. Also, my point was that investing in Int is good...this is investing in Int. It's investing fairly heavily.
Finally, there is a feat that you can take that lets you add your level to untrained skills and an archetype that does pretty much the same.
The Archetype is very specific. The Feat is totally a factor, but Level+2 remains notably better than Level, and if invested in Int maybe you just don't take the Feat. I suspect very few Rogues will ever take it in the first place given their sheer number of Skills.
Int is a nice stat to invest into but I wouldn't put the usefulness of it higher than Cha and would argue that they could give each other a run for their money in different situations. Both would be good to have.
Both can be handy, but all Charisma does is give a higher bonus on some skills (something you can get anyway in other areas). Int's bonus is much higher sans the +Level Feat. Admittedly, once you have the Feat they're much more on par, but that's once you have already invested in the Feat.
Additionally, once you get to 14 you can invest in a Potency item to raise a stat up to 18 which is really powerful for rounded characters.Sure, but you only ever get one of them, so Int is not a usual choice for most characters in this regard. Also, my point was that investing in Int is good...this is investing in Int. It's investing fairly heavily.
My point here was more to the fact that the soft caps actually encourage you to spread out your attribute points. While you could indeed have one attribute at 24 and another two attributes at 20 by level 20 your other attributes would take a pretty large hit for it.
You could have a much higher average spread by only increasing one or two attributes past the soft cap and putting your points in other stats to bump your average up.
These are some possible attribute spreads at 20.
24/20/18/18/14/8
22/20/20/18/14/8
22/20/18/18/18/16
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any new classes I want, I will probably just design them myself and release them as 3pp products ;)
(But seriously, I'd like to see a shapeshifter class that isn't the shifter)
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I VERY much want to bring the classes in our New Paths Compendium: Expanded Edition to 2E!!!
Heck, there’s even the Skin-Changer and Tinkerer in there for folks wishing for those ....
Very interested to see the early final rule set for this very reason !!! :)
I'd also love a Marshal/Commander - A martial party coordinator and buffer. PF1 cavalier with its dishing out teamwork feats was cool. Something like that.
As another new class would be a Blue Mage type. A class that gets special abilities from enemies. I think with the Traits of creatures and the way PF2 does animal companions (by category, not specific type) such a class would be possible. Possible as in balanced, not abusable and kept in limits.
The class would absorb powers from enemies via hit or from killed ones and keeps it for a time. Such as a predefined "construct" power from a golem or an "evil" power from a devil.
I agree. It would certainly help me improve my Megaman build to have a Blue Mage style caster available for flavor texting.
In PF1 there is a Ranger archetype called Blight Warden (I think) that has a good framework for how a Blue Mage could function. That could be a good starting point.
And a Marshal class would be great!
Archeologist, Gadgeteer, Dragon Knight (I prefer the original Japanese name for Dragoon), and Ritualist are pretty groovy too.
As for the psychics... I imagine that it should just be a single class called Psychic with something Mesmerist, Medium, and Occultist as the paths/sub-classes.
(Medium = Medium + Spiritualist)
And to throw in a suggestion of my own...
I have played a lot of Final Fantasy, so I'd love to see something similar to the Geomancer.
I suppose that it would be like a magical ranger with sets of limited spell lists that are dependent on the terrain they are currently in.
Maybe throw in an elemental inversion mechanic for planar travel situations.
(A standard Geomancer on the elemental plane of fire might have a hard time dealing with the native elementals if they can only use fire magic.)
PS- A casting class that exclusively uses Focus Points to cast spells instead of using spell slots with sub-classes for each of the 4 traditions would be great to have as an option.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I enjoyed about 1e Pathfinder were the classes and archetypes which really. gave a large number of options for customization. From my understanding, however, this is part of the complaint of 1E and part of the reason why 2e is being released (that and trying to compete with 5E D and D).
If this is the case, then why would developers add all sorts of classes to a new system?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I enjoyed about 1e Pathfinder were the classes and archetypes which really. gave a large number of options for customization. From my understanding, however, this is part of the complaint of 1E and part of the reason why 2e is being released (that and trying to compete with 5E D and D).
If this is the case, then why would developers add all sorts of classes to a new system?
There were a lot of reasons to move to PF2. Reducing the number of classes wasn't really one of them.
But to answer your question, the devs likely will only produce classes that fill sufficiently large niches. Being able to make the character you want is a huge part of the Pathfinder identity, and a class that aligns with some trope or concept is welcome, and simpler to navigate than building your own out of a bunch of multiclass feats. We're likely to have fewer new classes in the end though, since so much flexibility was built into PF2 that it's easier to fill design spaces with mixing and matching what they do put out than in PF1.
Also, the bones of the PF2 system is much easier to grok, so a new class isn't as difficult to wrap your head around as it was in PF1. Classes were designed to be more self-contained and self-explanatory.
There's also the profit incentive to produce more classes. Books with new classes sell really well.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I enjoyed about 1e Pathfinder were the classes and archetypes which really. gave a large number of options for customization. From my understanding, however, this is part of the complaint of 1E and part of the reason why 2e is being released (that and trying to compete with 5E D and D).
If this is the case, then why would developers add all sorts of classes to a new system?
With every system there’s the curse of eventual overencumberance; my brother is one who feels slightly overwhelmed by how much content there is when he tries to DM, but he’s more anal on wanting to know all the rules. I’ve heard people say they were intimidated to try 1e by just how much content there currently is; so there is some truth to that but not a definitive reason altogether.
Competing with 5e is just a nonsensical argument. That’s like saying Pugmire is trying to compete with Pathfinder for using the same game system. They of course want to make it appealing to people who like and play 5e, but not at the expense of their current fan base, and have tried to stress as much.
There’s also the fact that Pathfinder, which is grandfathering D&D 3e rules, is based on a system that is nearly 20 years old; going from 3e release date. With Pathfinder being nearly half of that systems’ life cycle. They have mentioned that they want to work with a new system and the current one has many flaws for areas they want to experiment with.
They plan to bring over the Archetype system and even expand on it, which wasn’t really possible for 1e. As for classes, they will most certainly make more, though the devil in the details becomes which classes and how?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I enjoyed about 1e Pathfinder were the classes and archetypes which really. gave a large number of options for customization. From my understanding, however, this is part of the complaint of 1E and part of the reason why 2e is being released (that and trying to compete with 5E D and D).
If this is the case, then why would developers add all sorts of classes to a new system?
I think you've been misinformed, which is hopefully good news. Particularly in the case of archetypes, the opposite is actually true.
One of the things they did with P2 was build archetypes into the core of the game, rather than having them be this weird APG add-on that doesn't really work for all classes. The classes are structured how they are, in part, so that you can slot in archetype abilities freely. Every archetype can also slot in to basically every class now, increasing options multiplicatively whenever a new archetype or class is produced.
So the core book has rules for archetypes and a multiclass archetype for each class. The new World Guide also has a bunch of Golarian-specific archetypes. That ends up being over 20 archetypes on day 1. So that's over 200 archetype/class combinations, which doesn't even get into the fact that you can combine archetypes much more easily now as well.
They've also said fan-favorite classes are very likely to come back. We only got the alchemist in the core book, but we haven't seen anything to suggest that'll be the end of it. They've specifically said that other favorite classes are likely to come back, it'll just take a while.
So, yeah, I think the future is brighter than you've been lead to believe :)
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
HackMaster had a class called the Charlatan that spent XP and gold to train in other class's abilities. While it was an easily breakable mess, I liked the concept of a character whose who shtick is learning from others. As the bard has moved from the "jack of all trades" concept towards its own more full concept, having something like that could be interesting.
|
|
In the game system I've worked on and off for several years now, there were a couple of archetypes (the system's equivalent of Classes) that focused on those sorts of things. The Champion, Guru, and Mystic especially honed into either leading by example or learning from others.
The more I read about PF2, the more I think it would be cool to convert some of my game into PF2. Hopefully it will be able to support some of the same things I was trying for with Factor12.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm a Swashbuckler class would be fun. Maybe make it the reaction based light armor class.
I sincerely hope that's not what happens. I'd be good with a swashbuckler class (though I would actually probably prefer it as an archetype since I think it's more of a theme that's appropriate for a wide number of classes), but nearly 1/3 of the ACG swashbuckler's abilities are mutually exclusive since they all use swift/immediate actions. No class should be built around "uses this action the best" or "is the X action class" since every class should have unique ways to use every action. Let's look for real opportunities to fill the design space instead of arbitrarily limiting mechanics and falling into traps we've already seen before.
If we do get a new swashbuckler class, I'd like to see it really focus on mobile combat, flashy swordplay, maybe even some neat reputation or verbal-repartee-based mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see the Swashbuckler carving its niche out as the dex-based martial class that gets a focus like pool of points for flashy swashbuckling antics. That seems distinct enough to warrant a new class.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the Swashbuckler is pretty much the poster child for classes that shouldn't have had to be made. The core concept of the class is something you should absolutely be able to build out of a Fighter or Rogue or Bard (among others, probably), but in PF1 the support for what the swashbuckler represents was so poor that wasn't really feasible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the Swashbuckler is pretty much the poster child for classes that shouldn't have had to be made. The core concept of the class is something you should absolutely be able to build out of a Fighter or Rogue or Bard (among others, probably), but in PF1 the support for what the swashbuckler represents was so poor that wasn't really feasible.
Swashbuckler was essentially Duelist, the full class. Which is kind of excessive, since the point of Duelist was that you could tack it on to any base class that wanted a 1-handed poky stick. So if it makes a return, it should be as a tack on archetype, and NOT! a base class.