The rules imply that objects have two different "modes" of existence. They can be independent objects, subject to targeting and damage from area-effect spells. Or, if carried by a character, they become "attributes" or "parts" of that character, and no more subject to specific damage than, say, the character's ears. These are not mutually exclusive - an object can be carried by a character and still be targeted by a spell or action. But they cannot be both at once in the context of a single action.
Note that it is the attacker, not the character, that determines which "mode" applies. The attacker indicates this by specifying what he is "targeting".
In the OP example, the objects carried by the victim would not be subject to the spell effects unless either 1) the caster targeted the specific item or 2) the spell specifically indicates that carried items are affected.
For Banishment (or Shove), since the carried items were not specifically targeted, they are considered to be part of the character and are banished with the character. There is nothing weird about this. After all, hair is nothing more than dead keratin that happens to still be attached to the skin, yet we would consider it even weirder if Banishment left the victim with a bald pate and silky-smooth legs. We intuitively understand that a character is more than just his living tissue, and the game makes no distinction between items that are carried in a pouch, gripped tightly in the hand, or attached like hair to the body.
The Pinocchio Paradox
There is one strange glitch in the game's handling of objects which I call the "Pinocchio Paradox". Suppose Geppetto is playing with his marionette when his archenemy strikes him with an area-effect spell. The puppet, being "carried" by Geppetto, is unharmed. On the next turn, the Blue Fairy turns the puppet into a real boy, and then Geppetto is struck with the same area-effect spell. This time, Pinocchio is caught in the spell and takes damage.
Although at first this seems like a hole in the rules, it really isn't. The essential distinction between the puppet and the boy is that the boy can take independent action. Damage in the game is only recorded when it has a game effect - that is, it affects the types of actions possible and the probability of specific results. On the first round, of course the puppet was damaged in the colloquial sense - the DM might describe the charring of the wood or the tangling of the strings - but that damage has no impact on combat and therefore is not recorded. On the second round, the damage done to the boy does have an impact on combat, as the boy has the potential for independent action which he may or may not now be able to (or wish to) take advantage of.
You can further imagine that the puppet could be magically (or mechanically) animated to make the situation seem even more paradoxical, but the rule for resolving it does not change. You can also consider the opposite paradox - is a baby being carried count as an object or a character? There is a simple test for these situations - is the object (potentially) capable of taking Actions and is therefore a "character"? If not, any damage (unless the object is specifically targeted) is considered cosmetic and for simplicity's sake is not recorded.
Sculpt Spells exists so you do not hurt your friends
When you cast a spell with an area of effect, everyone in the area is affected, including your friends / allies. Sculpt Spells lets you create "holes"(="pockets of relative safety") in the spell to keep your friends safe.
So an example use is:
- You cast an area spell, say, thunderwave in an area where friends and enemies are.
- You have Sculpt Spells so you can choose up to 1 + 1 (spell level) friends in the area
- The friends you chose are safe from your thunderwave and take no damage
- Everyone else takes the spell's effect as normal
Visual Example
These drawings may also help visually understand Sculpt Spell:
1. Normal situation:
2. With Sculpt Spell:
Best Answer
Gravity Well probably works with areas of effect
The Graviturgy Magic wizard's Gravity Well feature states (EGtW, p. 185; emphasis mine):
The bolded parts all show that the feature mentions a singular creature. But we cannot conclude whether this creature must be the only one targeted by the spell or merely a specific one. A GM could rule either that the use of the singular here means the spell must target only one creature or simply that the feature must target only one creature.
I recommend reading Thomas Markov's answer as it brings up some rather convincing arguments for why this feature should work with area of effect spells.
It is woefully unclear whether an area of effect spell targets the creatures in its area of effect
Whether or not something like fireball actually targets the creatures in its area of effect is not particularly clear and we have a lot of questions on this and other related things:
And many many related and linked question with questions related to and linked to those. People have argued fireball does not target creatures in its area of effect, and people have argued that it does; with all sides receiving numerous upvotes. Jeremy Crawford has held a surprisingly unwavering stance on the subject, but that doesn't mean much of anything (if anything at all).
At the end of that day, your GM will have to make a ruling about area of effect spells and what they consider to be their targets.
Here are the wordings some features throughout the books use that your GM may find helpful in determining an answer: