| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Is there any compelling reason I cannot maximize dispel magic and make my check always equal to 20+caster level?
So we have Maximize Spell
Your spells have the maximum possible effect.Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.
Level Increase: +3 (a maximized spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell's actual level.)
An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus half the normally rolled result.
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.
The dispel check doesn't have an opposed roll, so it is not an opposed roll and it clearly isn't a saving throw.
So the only weak objections I can come up with are this.
1. Opposed roll as a general term is not very well defined, so maybe the dispel check is actually an opposed roll.
2. The d20 roll is not actually part of the spells effect.
But RAW, I cannot think of any reason this shouldn't work, but it just seems wrong to me.
The Dispel Check is not part of the spells effects, it can't be maximized or empowered. It's not an opposed roll, though.
This. The CL check to dispell is not an effect of the spell, or something that in some way the spells "give" to you. It's just a check, like a Perception or Stealth check.
The Dispel Check is not part of the spells effects, it can't be maximized or empowered. It's not an opposed roll, though.
Do you have any rules to back that up?
Not saying you are wrong, but the dispel check is clearly written in the section that describes the effects of the spell and there is nothing in the text of the spell that clearly denoted that the d20 check is not part of the spell's effects. Without some clear delineation or rules to back up your statement it is then any DM can arbitrarily decide that any rolls made as part of a spell are "Not part of the spells effects" and thus not subject to empower/maximize.
The Dispel Check is not part of the spells effects, it can't be maximized or empowered. It's not an opposed roll, though.This. The CL check to dispell is not an effect of the spell, or something that in some way the spells "give" to you. It's just a check, like a Perception or Stealth check.
Maximize/Empower specifically says it cannot affect an opposed check. That implies that it can affect other normal, non-opposed checks that are part of the spells effects. As for proving that it is not part of the spell's effect, see my previous comment.
Actually, this IS an opposed roll...just like a saving throw, you're rolling to beat a target number. It would fall under the 'inapplicable' territory because of that.
==Aelryinth
Actually, this IS an opposed roll...just like a saving throw, you're rolling to beat a target number. It would fall under the 'inapplicable' territory because of that.
==Aelryinth
How do you know that it is an opposed roll? I've looked for a clarification on what an opposed roll is and the only thing I could find is when someone uses a skill like bluff against you and you get a sense motive check.
Going by what opposed roll litterally means (which could be different from what the writers want it to be) it means when two people both roll dice and apply modifiers and see who rolled highest. Dispel magic is a single roll against a specific target number.
Yeah, I found basically the same thing. "Opposed check" is being used as if it is a standard term, but that term is not defined anywhere in the rules.
All of the examples I could find involved people making 2 rolls being made in opposition to each other. IE Stealth vs Perception, Bluff vs Sense Motive, etc.Further, Saving Throws are specifically called out alongside opposed rolls by Maximize/Empower which implies that saving throws are NOT opposed rolls.
Aelryinth Do you have any rules to back up your assertion that the caster level check is an opposed roll?
I would go with it tells you to make a check and reminds you of the mechanics of how to do it, but you can't use maximize on it because its not an affect of the spell (just the mechanics of how to decide whether or not dispel works).
I would go with it tells you to make a check and reminds you of the mechanics of how to do it, but you can't use maximize on it because its not an affect of the spell (just the mechanics of how to decide whether or not dispel works).
You do realize you are splitting a very fine hair between "mechanics of how to decide whether or not dispel works" and "an affect of the spell"
By your logic, I can say that rolling level d6 dice of damage for a fireball is not part of the affect of the fireball spell just part of the mechanics for determining spell damage.
Finally, back to my original problem, do you have any rules to actually back your opinion up?
There is a DC 11+ caster level, it makes it a check. The effect of the spell is removing the spell, not the dispel check roll. It is like how an attack roll does not have its intended effect (dealing damage) until you successfully hit the AC (10+ all modifiers)
Also all checks and attack rolls are basically opposed rolls, except to streamline the game, the number is more static. AC is 10 + all modifiers, it is treated as if they rolled a 10. The same is true for all skill checks. There does not have to be an actual person rolling, or for that matter any rolling (if you can take 10), to cause something to be in opposition to your roll.
Pathfinder was built from D20, and even if there is no perfect explanation in pathfinder, there is plenty of examples of this in previous D20 publications.
RAI, I really don't believe it would work. RAW, I see absolutely nothing preventing it.
Since the text "dispel check (1d20 + your caster level)" is almost exactly equal to spells that call for a caster level check*, is it your opinion that maximized versions of such spells would similarly gain a result of 20+CL?
*glibness, for instance: "caster level check (1d20 + caster level)"
What about spells calling for an attack roll or a skill check? Even if a spell doesn't explain how to make those rolls via parentheses, it could have done, and that would have looked similar.
In my opinion, all of those types of checks/rolls should be treated the same way when used in a spell's description, for the purpose of Empower/Maximize, which would mean they wouldn't be affected by those metamagic feats.
To those arguing that the caster level check is not part of the spell, I would respond, "In that case, you're saying the caster level check to successfully dispel an effect can normally be made without casting Dispel Magic?"
You can't. The roll is part of the spell's effect - similar to how the touch attack granted by a touch spell is part of the spell itself.
As to it being an opposed roll because it is made against a target DC? I wholly disagree. By that argument, you couldn't use Maximize on Shocking Grasp, because discharging the spell (and actually making the roll that would be maximized by the feat) requires you to make an attack roll versus the target's touch AC.
In my experience, an 'opposed roll' or 'opposed skill check' means that both you and the opponent roll d20s, add appropriate modifiers, and the one that rolls higher wins. If you search the PFSRD (which I know isn't official; however, it allows you to search by particular section) for Gamemastering rules, the references using the term are always of that nature.
Since the text "dispel check (1d20 + your caster level)" is almost exactly equal to spells that call for a caster level check*, is it your opinion that maximized versions of such spells would similarly gain a result of 20+CL?
*glibness, for instance: "caster level check (1d20 + caster level)"
What about spells calling for an attack roll or a skill check? Even if a spell doesn't explain how to make those rolls via parentheses, it could have done, and that would have looked similar.
In my opinion, all of those types of checks/rolls should be treated the same way when used in a spell's description, for the purpose of Empower/Maximize, which would mean they wouldn't be affected by those metamagic feats.
"Caster level check" is used in multiple places. To overcome SR, to overcome another casters spells, etc. Some of those places have nothing to do with any specific spell, thus I feel comfortable calling it a separate mechanic just like hit rolls, saving throws, etc.
The problem is the choice to use the term dispel check. The only place where a dispel check is used is in the various dispelling spells or things that reference those spells specifically. That makes it difficult to call the dispel out as being clearly separate from the effect of the spell. If the rules has called out for a "caster level check" instead, you would have a lot more solid footing for saying it is referencing a separate mechanic that is really not part of the spell.
RAI, I really don't believe it would work. RAW, I see absolutely nothing preventing it.
That is where I am at. I have always played that it doesn't work, but I cannot find any solid RAW to back that up.
Thinking this over, I believe I have to alter my position.
The caster level check is not necessarily an effect of the spell. It is part of the spell, but it is not the spell's effect.
If we assume that the caster level check is maximized because it's an effect of the spell, then we should also assume that casting a maximized Shocking Grasp should always be an auto-crit. The free touch attack the casting grants you is caused by (or an effect of) the spell, so by the same logic it would automatically be a 20.
But I'm pretty sure no one believes that's how it works. The attack roll - and the CL check - are 'components' or parts of the spell, they are triggered by the casting, but they aren't actually the effect of the spell. The damage resulting from Shocking Grasp is the effect, therefore it is maximized.
Now, if Dispel Magic allowed you to dispel a number of spells from the target equal to a d6 roll, and you maximized it, then I believe it would automatically dispel 6 spells. But as it stands, I'm now pretty certain the caster level check isn't maximized.
Thinking this over, I believe I have to alter my position.
The caster level check is not necessarily an effect of the spell. It is part of the spell, but it is not the spell's effect.
If we assume that the caster level check is maximized because it's an effect of the spell, then we should also assume that casting a maximized Shocking Grasp should always be an auto-crit. The free touch attack the casting grants you is caused by (or an effect of) the spell, so by the same logic it would automatically be a 20.
But I'm pretty sure no one believes that's how it works. The attack roll - and the CL check - are 'components' or parts of the spell, they are triggered by the casting, but they aren't actually the effect of the spell. The damage resulting from Shocking Grasp is the effect, therefore it is maximized.
Now, if Dispel Magic allowed you to dispel a number of spells from the target equal to a d6 roll, and you maximized it, then I believe it would automatically dispel 6 spells. But as it stands, I'm now pretty certain the caster level check isn't maximized.
Actually, hit rolls are clearly a different beast entirely. The effect of shocking grasp is to make you hand charged with electricity, period. You are not required by the spell to actually make an attack roll in any way, form, or fashion. In fact, the actual attack is a separate free or standard action that happens after the spell is cast. Thus the rules make it very clear that the attack roll is NOT part of the spell. In the case of dispel magic, there is no clear identification that the dispel check is not part of the spells effect.
As a side note, this discussion also potentially applies to any spell that gives you a d20 reroll. The original check may not be part of the spells effect, but the extra dice given is clearly part of the spells effect, and could potentially be empowered or maximized as long as it isn't being used for a saving throw or opposed check..
Actually, hit rolls are clearly a different beast entirely. The effect of shocking grasp is to make you hand charged with electricity, period. You are not required by the spell to actually make an attack roll in any way, form, or fashion. In fact, the actual attack is a separate free or standard action that happens after the spell is cast. Thus the rules make it very clear that the attack roll is NOT part of the spell. In the case of dispel magic, there is no clear identification that the dispel check is not part of the spells effect.
If you do not cast a touch spell, then do you get a free touch attack? No.
That touch attack (not later ones, but that one specifically) is part of the spell. It's granted by the spell. By the same token, the caster level check is granted by Dispel Magic.
The effect of Shocking Grasp is a zap of electricity when you touch something; the effect of Dispel Magic is the removal of the spell effect from the target. The touch attack roll and the caster level check are both 'to hit' rolls, so to speak - not effects.
Actually, hit rolls are clearly a different beast entirely. The effect of shocking grasp is to make you hand charged with electricity, period. You are not required by the spell to actually make an attack roll in any way, form, or fashion. In fact, the actual attack is a separate free or standard action that happens after the spell is cast. Thus the rules make it very clear that the attack roll is NOT part of the spell. In the case of dispel magic, there is no clear identification that the dispel check is not part of the spells effect.If you do not cast a touch spell, then do you get a free touch attack? No.
That touch attack (not later ones, but that one specifically) is part of the spell. It's granted by the spell. By the same token, the caster level check is granted by Dispel Magic.
The effect of Shocking Grasp is a zap of electricity when you touch something; the effect of Dispel Magic is the removal of the spell effect from the target. The touch attack roll and the caster level check are both 'to hit' rolls, so to speak - not effects.
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
The rules are very clear that attacking with a touch spell is a separate free action from the action that is used to cast the spell. You are even able to cast shocking grasp, take your move action, then take a free action to make the touch attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The dispel check isn't the effect, it's how you resolve what the effect is. Much like a spell target's saving throw is.
That said... the idea of a maximized spiritual weapon critting on every swing is pleasing to my inner cleric.
The rules are very clear that attacking with a touch spell is a separate free action from the action that is used to cast the spell. You are even able to cast shocking grasp, take your move action, then take a free action to make the touch attack.
Using that particular rebuttal only works against the specific case of melee touch spells. Spells calling for ranged touch attacks don't separate the action in the same way.
An opposed roll is when you roll against a set number from another character such as their saving score, caster level. Two opposing skill checks would also be opposed rolls. In short if you have to bypass a number set by another character it is an opposed roll.
An example is bluff vs sense motive.
Skilled Liar (Ex): Whenever a spy uses Bluff to attempt to deceive someone, she gains a bonus on the opposed roll equal to 1/2 her rogue level (minimum +1). This bonus does not apply to feint attempts or attempts to pass secret messages. This ability replaces trapfinding.
Inquisitor Inquisitor: Add a +1/2 bonus on Stealth checks while motionless and on opposed Perception checks.
As an example a spell may allow me to grapple someone such as black tentacles. That spell much like dispel magic involves me using my caster level + 1d20 to see what the results of the spell are. I dont think anyone would say that spell allows for empower magic to affect the d20 roll.
The number I have to defeat much like dispel magic is a set number, making it an opposed roll.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Really? Because a caster level check involves rolling a d20, which means it's variable.
Fireball still has an effect if you roll all 1s on the d6 rolls.
Does Dispel Magic if you roll a 1? How about a 10? Or a 15 or 20?
A spell either effects you or it doesn't, and in this case the effect is dispelling the spell not the check to see if you are successful.
Actually, hit rolls are clearly a different beast entirely. The effect of shocking grasp is to make you hand charged with electricity, period. You are not required by the spell to actually make an attack roll in any way, form, or fashion. In fact, the actual attack is a separate free or standard action that happens after the spell is cast. Thus the rules make it very clear that the attack roll is NOT part of the spell. In the case of dispel magic, there is no clear identification that the dispel check is not part of the spells effect.If you do not cast a touch spell, then do you get a free touch attack? No.
That touch attack (not later ones, but that one specifically) is part of the spell. It's granted by the spell. By the same token, the caster level check is granted by Dispel Magic.
The effect of Shocking Grasp is a zap of electricity when you touch something; the effect of Dispel Magic is the removal of the spell effect from the target. The touch attack roll and the caster level check are both 'to hit' rolls, so to speak - not effects.
The rules are very clear that attacking with a touch spell is a separate free action from the action that is used to cast the spell. You are even able to cast shocking grasp, take your move action, then take a free action to make the touch attack.
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
You're missing what I'm saying; I apologize if I'm not being clear:
It doesn't matter that it's a free action, or even that it's separate. It's an action that's granted by the spell - i.e., it is an effect of the spell. The spell is the catalyst; the touch attack - whether you cast and touch, or cast, move, then touch - is one of the effects of the spell.
If you don't cast the spell, you don't get the touch. If you don't cast the spell, you don't get the CL check. If one is an effect, the other is as well.
The rules are very clear that attacking with a touch spell is a separate free action from the action that is used to cast the spell. You are even able to cast shocking grasp, take your move action, then take a free action to make the touch attack.Using that particular rebuttal only works against the specific case of melee touch spells. Spells calling for ranged touch attacks don't separate the action in the same way.
Yes, but it shows clearly that attack rolls are a separate mechanism from a touch spell's effects. That can be used as a precedent for ruling that all attack rolls are separate from a spell's effects.
For example, the effect of a ray spell is to produce a ray of energy. Aiming that energy effectively is separate from the actual effect of the spell and so forth.
Ok, so then why can't the case of a caster level check (which you yourself don't believe would be maximized/empowered) work as a precedent for dispel checks (which are written in almost the exact same way in the spells that use them)?
You're missing what I'm saying; I apologize if I'm not being clear:
It doesn't matter that it's a free action, or even that it's separate. It's an action that's granted by the spell - i.e., it is an effect of the spell. The spell is the catalyst; the touch attack - whether you cast and touch, or cast, move, then touch - is one of the effects of the spell.
If you don't cast the spell, you don't get the touch. If you don't cast the spell, you don't get the CL check. If one is an effect, the other is as well.
And I am saying that it is not an action granted by the spell. If I use an ability like quick channel that changes the type of action I use to do a certain action, it does not change the the base action. If you use an attack action to make a touch attack on in the same round you cast a touch spell, then the attack action becomes a free action instead of a standard action, but it is still a separate action from the actual casting and effect of the spell.
Or to put it another way, You can make touch attacks all day long, but if you don't cast a touch spell first, they are not going to do very much damage.
Ok, so then why can't the case of a caster level check (which you yourself don't believe would be maximized/empowered) work as a precedent for dispel checks (which are written in almost the exact same way in the spells that use them)?
Because for some reason they decided to write in a completely new rule just for dispels, so assuming that it is not affected by maximize is just that, an assumption. Also, the rules specifically exclude saving throws and opposed checks in empower/maximize, but they don't mention caster level checks or dispel checks. That implies that if they had not mentioned saving throws, they could be effected by maximize. That in turn implies that any check that is part of the spells effect can be affected by empower/maximize.
As I have said, I have always played it that you can't, but looking at the RAW, my decision seems arbitrary and lacking in foundation.
This also makes me wish we had a better glossary where terms like opposed check and dispel check were defined.
An opposed roll is when you roll against a set number from another character such as their saving score, caster level. Two opposing skill checks would also be opposed rolls. In short if you have to bypass a number set by another character it is an opposed roll.
An example is bluff vs sense motive.Skilled Liar (Ex): Whenever a spy uses Bluff to attempt to deceive someone, she gains a bonus on the opposed roll equal to 1/2 her rogue level (minimum +1). This bonus does not apply to feint attempts or attempts to pass secret messages. This ability replaces trapfinding.Inquisitor Inquisitor: Add a +1/2 bonus on Stealth checks while motionless and on opposed Perception checks.As an example a spell may allow me to grapple someone such as black tentacles. That spell much like dispel magic involves me using my caster level + 1d20 to see what the results of the spell are. I dont think anyone would say that spell allows for empower magic to affect the d20 roll.
The number I have to defeat much like dispel magic is a set number, making it an opposed roll.
In both of those examples, 2 rolls are being made. d20 + stealth vs d20 + perception and d20 + Bluff vs d20 + Sense Motive. Every example I have checked in the rules, opposed check means opposed rolls.
That is the problem with your definition of opposed check. It is not supported by the rules. Can you find any example of an "opposed roll" in the rules that doesn't involve a d20 roll being taken on both sides?
The dispel check isn't the effect, it's how you resolve what the effect is. Much like a spell target's saving throw is.
That said... the idea of a maximized spiritual weapon critting on every swing is pleasing to my inner cleric.
Meh, you would be doing 26 damage per round with a 5th level spell hardly out of line. Also, there is precedent for that attack roll not being considered part of the spell's effect, see above.
Also, the rules specifically exclude saving throws and opposed checks in empower/maximize, but they don't mention caster level checks or dispel checks. That implies that is they had not mentioned saving throws, they could be effected by maximize.
On the contrary, those are probably included as simply the two most asked about items as far as "what does maximize do?". There is no implication that other unlisted rolls that are not direct effects of the spell would be affected - you can't list every kind of roll that a spell might require.
Evidence? 3.0 Maximize did not include that statement:
Maximize Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of a maximized spell are maximized. A maximized spell deals maximum damage, cures the maximum number of hit points, affects the maximum number of targets, etc., as appropriate. Spells without random variables are not affected. A maximized spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell’s actual level.
An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus one-half the normally rolled result.
That said... the idea of a maximized spiritual weapon critting on every swing is pleasing to my inner cleric.Meh, you would be doing 26 damage per round with a 5th level spell hardly out of line. Also, there is precedent for that attack roll not being considered part of the spell's effect, see above.
Actually, if you worship Urgathoa you would be dealing 88 damage per round. Automatically. That's 748 force damage over the spell's duration (less 44 per redirect).
There is also plenty of precedent for a dispel check not being considered part of the spell's effect, see above also.
No FAQ needed.
Also, the rules specifically exclude saving throws and opposed checks in empower/maximize, but they don't mention caster level checks or dispel checks. That implies that is they had not mentioned saving throws, they could be effected by maximize.On the contrary, those are probably included as simply the two most asked about items as far as "what does maximize do?". There is no implication that other unlisted rolls that are not direct effects of the spell would be affected - you can't list every kind of roll that a spell might require.
Evidence? 3.0 Maximize did not include that statement:
Maximize Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of a maximized spell are maximized. A maximized spell deals maximum damage, cures the maximum number of hit points, affects the maximum number of targets, etc., as appropriate. Spells without random variables are not affected. A maximized spell uses up a spell slot three levels higher than the spell’s actual level.
An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus one-half the normally rolled result.
Maybe, but to get to your position, you have to assume an unwritten rule, namely that "the dispel check is not part of the effects of the dispel magic spell" even though it is clearly written and described in the effects section of the spell.
Caster level checks to overcome spell resistance, for example, are not written into the effects section of a spell. They are written as a general rule.
That said... the idea of a maximized spiritual weapon critting on every swing is pleasing to my inner cleric.Meh, you would be doing 26 damage per round with a 5th level spell hardly out of line. Also, there is precedent for that attack roll not being considered part of the spell's effect, see above.Actually, if you worship Urgathoa you would be dealing 88 damage per round. Automatically. That's 748 force damage over the spell's duration (less 44 per redirect).
There is also plenty of precedent for a dispel check not being considered part of the spell's effect, see above also.
No FAQ needed.
If there is so much precedent, then please post it here.
Maybe, but to get to your position, you have to assume an unwritten rule, namely that "the dispel check is not part of the effects of the dispel magic spell" even though it is clearly written and described in the effects section of the spell.
Caster level checks to overcome spell resistance, for example, are not written into the effects section of a spell. They are written as a general rule.
They are not in the effects section of the spell. The are in the "Descriptive Text" section.
If there is so much precedent, then please post it here.
Spells without random variables are not affected.
Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables.
Saving throws and opposed rolls were not affected in 3.0, that text was added for clarity, not as an all inclusive list.
What precedent do you have for any check being an "effect" of a spell?
Great example seebs. Though to clarify, you're not getting X dispel checks, you're getting X attempts to dispel magic. That is resolved via a dispel check usually (it's automatic vs. your own spells). Just as most other effects are resolved by a saving throw, spell resistance check, etc.
I think there are items that let you make dispel checks. Like, the ... I think it was "negating" property for a weapon?
Imagine a spell called dispel some magic, which lets you make 1d6 dispel checks. I would let a maximized dispel some magic do 6 dispel checks, and an empowered one do 1d6*1.5. But I wouldn't give you bonuses on the dispel effects.
A negating weapon negates alignment based DR.
Dispelling Bomb
Prerequisite: Alchemist 6Benefit: When the alchemist creates a bomb, he can choose to have it dispel magic effects instead of deal damage. Creatures that take a direct hit from a dispelling bomb are subject to a targeted dispel magic spell, using the alchemist’s level as the caster level. This cannot be used to target a specific spell effect.
By focusing on your knowledge of magic and spells that negate its powers, you use your bare hands to rip magical defenses from your enemy.Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +11, ability to cast dispel magic, caster level 7th.
Benefit: If you have dispel magic prepared or can cast it spontaneously, you can cast it as a swift action after hitting an opponent with an unarmed strike. Treat this as a targeted dispel against the opponent you hit.
Prerequisite: Magus 9Benefit: The magus can spend 1 or more points from his arcane pool as a swift action to imbue his weapon with a special power. If the weapon strikes a creature within the next minute, that creature is the subject of a targeted dispel magic using the magus’s level as the caster level, except that this effect cannot dispel a spell of a level higher than the number of arcane pool points expended to activate this ability (treat higher-level spells as if they do not exist and apply the dispel attempt to the remaining spells with the highest caster level). Once the strike is made, the power dissipates, even if the dispel attempt is unsuccessful.
Price +1 bonus
Aura strong abjuration; CL 10th; Weight —DESCRIPTION
A dispelling weapon functions like a spell storing weapon, but it may only store dispel magic; however, the caster level check to dispel gains an additional bonus equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. This bonus also applies to a magus's dispelling strike arcana or a barbarian's spell sunder or sunder enchantment combat maneuver check.
In every case I have found, there is not a separate dispel check. All dispel checks are taken as part of casting dispel magic or a similar spell. In short, the rules simply do not support dispel check being a separate entity from the dispel magic spell.