Can I use levitate to disarm someone?

[SethTheFrank]

So I am considering the best uses of levitate. Aside from the obvious "oops, I forgot a 50 foot ladder", and the potential to immobilize someone by floating a brawler above the fray, it seems to me like a decent disarm.

The spell text is "One creature or object of your choice that you can see within range rises vertically, up to 20 feet, and remains suspended there for the duration. The spell can levitate a target that weighs up to 500 pounds. An unwilling creature that succeeds on a Constitution saving throw is unaffected."

Unlike Enlarge/Reduce there is no limitation put on whether it is an object being carried or not. It seems that I could then lift someone's sword/shield/helmet/or ranged weapon that they were aiming. The object would be pulled with up to 500 pounds of force directly upwards. This is well in excess of what a human can pull. Therefore a person holding it would either hold and lift themselves, or lose their grip on the weapon (strength check). Presumably, if they weigh more than 500lbs they could anchor it to the ground. That said, I cannot imagine a circumstance where someone could wield a weapon that is being pulled upward like that.

The questions are then:
has this been addressed previously by an authority or significantly discussed? Is there a reason this shouldn't work?

If someone succeeds at holding onto the weapon, what happens? Can they use it normally or is it like having a giant helium balloon tied to the weapong?

Lastly: What if I cast this on someone's armor? Would this effectively disable them without a saving throw? I mean, if my shirt was trying to lift me off of the ground, throwing a punch would seem to entirely unfeasible.

I am relatively new, so let me know if I missed something obvious.

[Hypersmith]

Seems like a clever use to me. Now the real challenge is getting your opponents to start wearing uncommonly sturdy neckties...

[Solusek]

Lastly: What if I cast this on someone's armor? Would this effectively disable them without a saving throw? I mean, if my shirt was trying to lift me off of the ground, throwing a punch would seem to entirely unfeasible.

Generally trying to affect something that is worn or carried by another creature gives a saving throw as if you were affecting the creature itself. Levitating a sword or armor is a neat idea, but they would have to fail a save the same as if you had targeted them directly with the spell.

[SethTheFrank]

Generally trying to affect something that is worn or carried by another creature gives a saving throw as if you were affecting the creature itself. Levitating a sword or armor is a neat idea, but they would have to fail a save the same as if you had targeted them directly with the spell.

So why do some spells specify limitations, such as enlarge reduce, and some like this are silent?

[Ganymede]

Fundamentally, the lack of "unattended" language looks like an error.

Consider this: the spell requires an unwilling creature to fail a saving throw in order to be affected by this spell. Being able to select an object that isn't unattended means that you can circumvent this saving throw; simply target a foe's armor. The object itself gets no save and the creature within it is lifted up automatically. Not even doffing the armor is a useful option as that takes a full minute at a bare minimum.


Ask yourself, SethTheFrank, does this make sense?