"Open Grave" previews Strahd's longsword

[Jester of the FoS]

After Reading I Strahd, I figure him for a Warlord witht eh Vampire Lord template (perhaps souped up for Ravenloft and his Darklord status), and the death pact would be the addition of the Warlock template or MC into Warlock.

I think Strahd should receive the full write up as a PC of the level they decide for him then add the template or templates.

I think he's more flexible in the monster write-up where they can give him a strong basic attack, necromantic powers, and vampire abilities along with stuff custom to him.
The WotC hasn't really shown any PC write-ups except as filled-out character sheets. They probably don't have a monster-style or page friendly format for PCs (other than the sheets you saw in Keep on the Shadowfell).

[Jester of the FoS]

Another great joy of 4e - you can have a different writeup for him at every encounter. (I think Expedition to Castle Ravenloft follows this track.) You can work him as a striker one room, then as a skulker, then a controller... you're essentially working with the concept that Strahd *has* access to all those powers, but is only whipping out the relevant ones in any given encounter.

If they were re-releasing the adventure then yes.
Since he's just one NPC/monster in a big book he'll probably just have a single statblock.

[Matthew L. Martin]

Just a clarification, for those who haven't read the novels:

The entity or entities with which Strahd made his pact never explicitly claimed to be "Death". That was an assumption on Strahd's own part, and it most likely tells us more about what the aging war-veteran had feared the most at the time than about what he made his bargain with.

"I am every nightmare every creature has ever had. I am the dark thoughts of murder and treachery, of fear and lust and obscenity and violation. I am the cutting word that kills the soul and the bloody knife that kills the body. I am the poison at the bottom of the cup, the noose around the thief's neck, the cry of the wronged, and the shriek of the tortured. I am the lie. I am the black pit of madness. I am Death and all things worse. You know me, Count Strahd Von Zarovich. We are old, old friends, you and I. . . . You have fed me well. You are due your reward."--Vampire of the Mists, p. 256, emphasis added

[cure]

Just a clarification, for those who haven't read the novels:

The entity or entities with which Strahd made his pact never explicitly claimed to be "Death". That was an assumption on Strahd's own part, and it most likely tells us more about what the aging war-veteran had feared the most at the time than about what he made his bargain with.

"I am every nightmare every creature has ever had. I am the dark thoughts of murder and treachery, of fear and lust and obscenity and violation. I am the cutting word that kills the soul and the bloody knife that kills the body. I am the poison at the bottom of the cup, the noose around the thief's neck, the cry of the wronged, and the shriek of the tortured. I am the lie. I am the black pit of madness. I am Death and all things worse. You know me, Count Strahd Von Zarovich. We are old, old friends, you and I. . . . You have fed me well. You are due your reward."--Vampire of the Mists, p. 256, emphasis added

As I recall (and thus this should be verified by someone) the book is basically told in the first person by Strahd himself. And at least some of that telling is at odds with independently established fact. The result being that the book is viewed as, to some degree, self-serving Barovian propaganda. And that, if true, returns us to the question of whether this is what really happened or whether this is merely what Strahd - presumptions, motives and all - set down as having happened.

[Matthew L. Martin]

As I recall (and thus this should be verified by someone) the book is basically told in the first person by Strahd himself. And at least some of that telling is at odds with independently established fact. The result being that the book is viewed as, to some degree, self-serving Barovian propaganda. And that, if true, returns us to the question of whether this is what really happened or whether this is merely what Strahd - presumptions, motives and all - set down as having happened.

It's I, Strahd that's presented as entirely Strahd's journal, oh-so-conveniently left for van Richten to find. The material from Vampire of the Mists also comes from one of Strahd's journals, but a private one that reveals more than he would have liked Jander to know.

[DocBeard]

Which is really just a way of saying, "Guys, he's Dracula, his history's going to be a little inconsistent."

I mean, mysterious null-beings from impossible shadows between reality are pretty prone to talking themselves up either way. Novels have never really been an all that reliable source for 'hard canon' information, because...they're novels. A writer isn't, and shouldn't, thinking about the game system he is dipping from first and foremost, she's thinking about writing a good story.

As far as 'classes' go, I like that 4E's been resisting giving wizards access to the mind control suite of powers, because it leaves a niche open for the psychic classes and it means that wizards can't do everything. Fighter or Warlord with Warlock powers're a good fit, but ultimately Strahd's an NPC and I know I'm going to worry about him being a cool villain for my players to fight when I'm adapting stats for him in a game.

[Adam]

I think asking for Strahd to be statted as a fighter or wizard is sort of missing the 4e point. Monster design in this system is built intentionally so you DON'T have to handcuff yourself to "he's a wizard" or "he's a fighter." Especially since he would be a solo, you just give him powers that suit the things you think he should be able to do. The poster further up who suggested writing 8 different Strahd stat blocks to match whatever you need him to do in every encounter is dead on, and the way I'm planning on doing it if/when I update EtCR for 4th.

[DocBeard]

Personally, I want to stat up that carriage/war machine of his.

[Archedius]

Here's my thoughts on the Tome of Strahd: It's not propaganda- he's not handing it out to influence people's views of his past. I think it's how Strahd actually sees himself, his past and the events around it. Lord knows he's self-deluded enough to keep going after his reincarnating obsession

I don't even think he minded Van Richten reading it. The old warrior in Strahd would have a respect for Richten's boldness and part of being human (or even formerly) is the need to share your views and opinions with others.

Despite the dangerous amount of information about his background that he let slip, his arrogance would let him allow Richten to know it. Deep down Strahd must be very lonely- he has no equals he can trust, mindless undead servants, fearful lackeys; no one to express himself to. A lich doesn't have this problem (heck take a look at Azalin) but a vampire likely would (as they are closely tied to the living).

The Tome of Strahd is a release for him. It is where he could put down his feelings, views and justifications. Deep down, part of him must've liked the cathartic release of having SOMEONE take in his views on the past. Besides- if he changed his mind later- he could easily have Richten or his family killed.

I heard that in 4E it wasn't easy to have multiple classes on an individual- by cannon Strahd was a general (fighter) and a good one at that. I understand how he could now be a death pact warlock (can warlocks in 4th edition create undead like Strahd has done in cannon?). It's just too bad that he can't have fighter levels to represent his actual past.

[Lord Soth]

I heard that in 4E it wasn't easy to have multiple classes on an individual- by cannon Strahd was a general (fighter) and a good one at that. I understand how he could now be a death pact warlock (can warlocks in 4th edition create undead like Strahd has done in cannon?). It's just too bad that he can't have fighter levels to represent his actual past.

NPC's aren't bound by PC character creation rules. You can create an NPC/Monster with pretty much any ability you like. So if you want a vampire who's got some spellcasting mixed in with melee abilities, you can do that. And as someone pointed out, above, there's no reason you can't write up the same bad guy several times, to represent different spells memorized or being used, different equipment being used, etc.

Although if you wanted to write him up as a PC, you could probably do it by statting him up primarily as a Necromancer (A future class) or Warlock multiclassed with Fighter (or the other way around).