Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rbligh 07-01-04, 04:40 PM	I understand that casting Comprehend Languages would allow the caster to read something written in some unknown language, but would it also allow him to essentially break a code written in that unknown language as well. I have a player that insists that the spell allows his character to understand what is written on the page regardless of the code. My thought is that the character gets to understand the language of the unbroken code, and that to truly understand what is written on the page, he must somehow break the code. I just can't see this low level spell breaking through not just one, but what amounts to two layers of obscurity. Who's right? Frustrated! :behold:
Seeker95 07-01-04, 04:47 PM	Technically, he is right. Codes can be considered languages in that they convey meaning through symbols. However, the code only conveys meaning when translated into an understood language, so in the game I would not allow comprehend languages to be used to break a code.
Zherog 07-01-04, 04:52 PM	The rooster crows at midnight That might be code for, "Meet me behind the chicken coop at 11pm". It's a note written on a piece of paper, in the elven language. Your players intercept the note, and nobody speaks elven. "No problem," says the cleric as he casts Comprehend Languages. He completes the spell and reads the note. In my opinion, he gets the words on the page (The rooster crows at midnight), not the implied meaning behind the words (Meet me behind the chicken coop at 11pm).
Phrennzy 07-01-04, 04:55 PM	Completely agree with Zherog.
Nagol 07-01-04, 05:00 PM	Have your player read the spell description. It is quite clear. You can understand the spoken words of creatures or read otherwise incomprehensible written messages. In either case, you must touch the creature or the writing. The ability to read does not necessarily impart insight into the material, merely its literal meaning. So, the character would get "The rooster crows at midnight."
Beamup 07-01-04, 05:04 PM	You also would not get anything written in a cipher. In such a case, the text would remain gibberish - though you'd recognize the letters and the alphabet used. Basically, I consider comprehend languages as having spent infinite skill points in Speak Language. So if you could learn it via Speak Language, comprehend languages will translate it. If you couldn't, it won't.
Bedevere 07-01-04, 05:50 PM	Codes and cyphers are designed to conceal meaning, not to express them. Therefore, it is the complete opposite of what comprehend languages works on.
Edward 07-01-04, 08:51 PM	I concur codes, ciphers the mercury encryption system are all unable to be broken with comprehend language. Of cause if you are trying to break a imply cipher you will automatically fail unless you speak the language or use a spell to understand it. Edward
Edymnion 07-01-04, 09:06 PM	Innovation Luxury Opulance Variety Equality Youth Observation Unity If you used comprehend language, you could get those words. However, it would not immediantly reveal the hidden message, which is spelled out by the first letter of each line, aka "I LOVE YOU". So no, Comprehend Languaes does not allow you to break codes. It lets you essentially act as if you knew the language. If you can write the code in common, it is still a code, and it doesn't mean the PCs can read it. Just because the code is hidden in another language does not suddenly make it fair game for magical decryption. But give it over to a Rogue to make a Decipher Script check on it. I would allow that to be used to figure out cyphers and codes.
Zherog 07-01-04, 09:20 PM	Originally posted by Edymnion "I LOVE YOU". :blush: Gosh, Edy. I didn't know you cared so much. :P
Edward 07-01-04, 11:30 PM	More over if you translated the words into common and gave them to another character to attempt to break the code he would probably never succeed (unless he thought to translate it back) because that code is dependant on the characters not the meaning of the words. Edward
Edymnion 07-01-04, 11:39 PM	Originally posted by Zherog :blush: Gosh, Edy. I didn't know you cared so much. :P Well, who do you think kept sending you those flowers? I thought it would have been pretty obvious after I sent you that boxed set of Mr. Ed tapes... ;)
Loren Pechtel 07-02-04, 12:06 AM	It's been touched on but I think needs clarifying: There are two basic ways of obscuring information, codes and ciphers. Codes are based on some sort of mathematical transformation of the source material. In a pre-machinery era they are going to be pretty simple in most cases. The only system I'm aware of that was any good back then was a one-time pad. (Note, however, the science of code-breaking was very weak, also.) One-time pads are actually totally secure, they are just a logisitcal nightmare. In fact, a one-time pad falls in a grey area between codes and ciphers. Ciphers are based in some fashion on a dictionary that translates term A into meaning B. I would allow comprehend languages to break all codes other than one-time pads. Ciphers would only show the pre-dictionary meaning, though. Thus you would get the rooster crows at midnight. Decoding a language is a far more complex task than decoding a code. After all, consider the best "code" we used in WWII--the messages were sent in the clear. In Navaho.
sparkster4242 07-02-04, 06:50 AM	The spell says nothing about codes or ciphers, only languages. If the message in question just happens to be written with actual words, you will understand them -- but if they are strung together nonsensically, you wont learn much. If the characters you see spell out gibberish, you will see its literal meaning in whatever language they are written (i.e., none). loren: you have them backwards - a cipher is a mathematical function which takes plaintext as its input, and produces ciphertext as its output. The relationship between any plain/ciphertext pair is the same (many quite good ciphers can fit on a single page) -- also, the content of the ciphertext depends at least in part on the content of the plaintext. For these reasons, mathematical analysis can be used to 'de-cipher' any ciphertext. a code, on the other hand, is not subject to mathematical analysis, since the relationship between any particular plaintext/codetext pair is _arbitrary_. with any well-designed code, there is _no_ relationship between any plain/code-text pair or set of pairs -- except for the code-book. For instance, 'A rooster crows at midnight' would have nothing whatsoever to do with barnyard fowl or 12am, and 'A hen crows at midnight' would have nothing at all to do with the first message. With this lack of underlying structure, analysis is basically stuck: you need the code-book to 'de-code' a message. unfortunately, good codes tend to be either quite small (and thus not very versatile) or quite large (a book containing every possible message ... twice) and difficult to carry. yer right about the one-time pad, its a tricky little bugger. strictly speaking its a cipher, but with a truly random pad its as good at disrupting structure as a code. The only way to 'de-cipher' the message is with the *cough* codebook -- the original pad. sadly, if the pad itself contains any structure, then the system becomes compromised. Mathematical analysis becomes possible, since the random element is really all the technique has going for it. yer dead on with Navaho, tho -- since there is no relationship between an English word and its Navaho equivalent, it makes an excellent code. as long as the enemy cant cast Comprehend Languages, anyway :p
rbligh 07-11-04, 03:35 PM	Thank you all for your insights. I'd especially like to thank those of you who took the time to pass on some of your knowledge of codes & ciphers (I, for one, had not considered the implications of the difference). I think I have enough ammunition to back up my argument now. Thank you all again!
ikkonoishi 07-11-04, 03:41 PM	Vaqrrq gurl jbhyq unir gebhoyr haqrefgnaqvat guvf rira vs gurl fcbxr ratyvfu.
Edymnion 07-11-04, 03:50 PM	Originally posted by ikkonoishi Vaqrrq gurl jbhyq unir gebhoyr haqrefgnaqvat guvf rira vs gurl fcbxr ratyvfu. What did you say about my mother? Actually, he just said: "Indeed they would have trouble understanding this even if they spoke english."
Loren Pechtel 07-11-04, 11:34 PM	Originally posted by sparkster4242 loren: you have them backwards - a cipher is a mathematical function which takes plaintext as its input, and produces ciphertext as its output. Oops! yer dead on with Navaho, tho -- since there is no relationship between an English word and its Navaho equivalent, it makes an excellent code. as long as the enemy cant cast Comprehend Languages, anyway :p If it were an issue of a Navaho word vs an English word the Japanese would have broken it. The reason they couldn't break it is that when you translate something to another language you do *NOT* have a one-to-one relationship between the words.
sparkster4242 07-12-04, 01:56 AM	word-count isnt really that much of an issue, since a word-phrase relationship is almost as easy to work with mathematically as a word-word relationship. What i meant by 'no relationship' is that no matter how you alter the spoken sound, transpose letters/words/phrases, or consult obscure phrases in literature, you wont be able to derive a simple formula to convert one language into the other -- it requires a 'codebook' big enough to hold both languages. that makes it an excellent 'code' -- the arbitrary relationship between the plaintext (english) and code-text (navajo).