captcorajus
Explorer
It's very easy to assume that your reading is the only natural one, and that others who read the rules differently "didn't understand what they read".
But @Dausuul is not new to playing D&D, nor to reading rules. In my own case I've been doing both (in the context of D&D) for over 30 years, and I make my living reading rules (of a different sort) and teaching others how to read them.
Just for fun: please point me to the rule in the Basic PDF which explains what happens when a rogue is hidden behind a wall, and that wall is then disintegratd. Does the disintegrating wizard have to succeed at a Perception check to notice the rogue?
Okay... wait a second... pause while I blink and then snicker a bit. You are expecting a WRITTEN RULE to cover some obscure circumstance? Your question blatantly shows that you've missed the point entirely... and I don't mean to be offensive, but really?
The rules should be flexible enough for the DM to be able to adjudicate fairly situations just like you are describing, without a NEED to have every possible scenario referenced by the rules. I desire to spend my game session PLAYING... not looking up some bizarre rule that covers some obscure situation.
And to answer your question... its purely situational. and this is exactly why DM's were invented. Was the wizard actually in the process of LOOKING for the rogue when he disintegrated the wall? If yes, then, guess what, the rogue's 'cover is blown' so to speak.
If not, and the wall was just disintegrated due to some other circumstance, and additional cover is nearby, the rogue can attempt a new stealth check at disadvantage, and immediately check the result against the wizard's passive perception.
Thus, it seems to me, the rules already cover this situation.