At 11th level, a Rogue gets Reliable Talent ("RT"), which provides:
Reliable Talent
By 11th level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.
At 2nd level, a Bard gets Jack of All Trades ("JOAT"), which provides:
Jack of All Trades
Starting at 2nd level, you can add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to any ability check you make that doesn’t already include your proficiency bonus.
A Champion's Remarkable Athlete ("RA") is similar to JOAT, but more limited:
Remarkable Athlete
Starting at 7th level, you can add half your proficiency bonus (round up) to any Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution check you make that doesn’t already use your proficiency bonus.
The question is, is adding "half your proficiency bonus" to an ability check count as adding "your proficiency bonus" to an ability check for the purpose of RT?
I am aware of the Sage Advice on this, which I am specifically completely uninterested in, because JC appears to be confused about whether he is being asked about Reliable Talent or Remarkable Athlete, contradicts his own earlier answers, and in any event does not couch his ruling in the the rule text of either ability. As usual, JT tweets are not rules.
The reason I think that RT does apply to all abilities benefiting from JOAT, is that if adding "half your proficiency bonus" is not the same as "your proficiency bonus," then that would argue for ruling that skills for which "your proficiency bonus is doubled" is not the same as "your proficiency bonus" either... in other words, RT would not apply to anything you have Expertise on, if it only applies to skills which you add no more/no less than your proficiency bonus to. That doesn't seem RAI. And if RAI is that RT includes skills for which "your proficiency bonus is doubled" I don't see any language that would suggest that line wouldn't be drawn to also include "half your proficiency bonus" or anything else which provides a bonus that references and is based upon your proficiency bonus.
The options I see are:
RT applies only to skills which you apply your exact proficiency bonus to (not JOAT, not RA, not any skill you have Expertise in or otherwise add twice your proficiency bonus to, such as Scout's bonus skills)
RT applies to any skill which you apply a bonus to derived from your proficiency bonus or a multiple of it (JOAT, RA, proficiencies, Expertise and other double-prof. skill abilities)
RT applies to any skill which you apply a bonus equal to or greater than your proficiency bonus, but not to any skill which you apply less than your full proficiency bonus (yes prof., yes Expertise, but no JOAT or RA)
I think it is option 3. My reason being this analogy:
A soda can be bought by anyone who has 1$. A person who has 50¢ obviously can't buy a soda, while a person who has 2$ obviously can.
We all know the rules aren't clearly written in a way that you can't argue over almost any rule. But I think this both logically makes sense and is RAI.
[Edit]Also, took a look at that tweet after. JC seems to have been saying the same thing (option 3) in all of them.
I'm inclined to go with option 3 as well. Jack of All Trades isn't full proficiency so it doesn't count but expertise does because it's proficiency twice.
It's definitely a muddy answer. I can see reasoning for all of the options and I'd be okay with a DM ruling any of them in any game I'm in.
I know I’m not really answering the question of what I think the RAW is, but here’s how I’d run it:
1) Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete are applicable to checks that you’re not proficient in.
2) Reliable Talent is applicable to checks that you ARE proficient in.
3) Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete don’t both apply to the same check because I don’t think they should.
Gun to my head, asking for my best interpretation of actual RAW, I’d keep 1 and 2 and discard 3. “Includes your proficiency bonus” reads like a “greater than or equal to” condition to me. Taking it this way makes me feel like I’m forcing myself to allow Reliable Talent when both JoAT and RA apply, and I guess I am saying that I think that’s probably RAW, but I wouldn’t rule that way even in an AL game.
Yeah Saga, your 3 is why you can't trust the JC tweets to answer this. In that bottom tweet, JC says that JOAT and RA can't apply to the same skill, because "you can't add your proficiency bonus, or any part of it, to a roll more than once." So by JC's own admission, adding "half your proficiency bonus" to a skill from JOAT or RA counts as adding "your proficiency bonus" to that skill... so it should then qualify for RT! If JOAT and RA don't count as adding "your proficiency bonus," then nothing stops you from applying both JOAT and RA to the same skill...
So either he's wrong about JOAT and RA not stacking, or he's wrong about RT not applying to JOAT/RA skills, or there's entirely unwritten language or "intent" that we're forced to respect which somehow reconciles his inconsistent positions.
That all sounds pretty complicated to me. Trying to decipher what was "intended" never ends up being as obvious as everyone claims, and proficiency, expertise, other expertise-like abilities, JOAT, RA.... they all one way or another add your proficiency bonus (or a multiple thereof) to a skill, so I would be inclined to trigger RT on any of the above.
I think that’s a reasonable way to take the language, but I think it’s an unreasonable way to run the game, which is why I say “are proficient in” rather than “apply your proficiency bonus to” haha
Allowing an at-least 11th level rogue to never roll under an 11 on any ability check ever for the low low price of two levels of bard is an untenable proposition. Other people can do whatever they want at their tables of course, I’m only speaking to the kind of game I want to run myself.
I'm inclined to agree that it leads to a bad result, but I'm not sure that is enough to say that that isn't what the rule says. Bad rules can and should be errata'd to remove unintended consequences, but that doesn't mean that players should bend over backwards to excuse the rule that is currently written. Even when the authors communicate that their intent wasn't to create that bad result, in my opinion the proper remedy is an errata, not reading the current rule to say something it doesn't.
Oh yeah, for sure. Like I said I think it’s a reasonable way to take the language, and I absolutely think the writers should be taken to task for their poor job at writing clear rules.
But I do think a more reasonable way to take the language is to take “includes” as “greater than or equal to” as most other posters here have done. If my proficiency bonus is 3, I add 6 with expertise and 1 with Jack of All Trades. It feels a lot easier to argue that 6 includes 3 than that 1 includes 3.
But again, I want to stress that I do not think there’s anything to rule out the idea that half your proficiency bonus counts your proficiency bonus for such purposes.
Yeah Saga, your 3 is why you can't trust the JC tweets to answer this. In that bottom tweet, JC says that JOAT and RA can't apply to the same skill, because "you can't add your proficiency bonus, or any part of it, to a roll more than once." So by JC's own admission, adding "half your proficiency bonus" to a skill from JOAT or RA counts as adding "your proficiency bonus" to that skill... so it should then qualify for RT! If JOAT and RA don't count as adding "your proficiency bonus," then nothing stops you from applying both JOAT and RA to the same skill...
So either he's wrong about JOAT and RA not stacking, or he's wrong about RT not applying to JOAT/RA skills, or there's entirely unwritten language or "intent" that we're forced to respect which somehow reconciles his inconsistent positions.
Unless JOAT and RA add part of your proficiency bonus, buy not all of it.
And actually, when I think about it: I don't think there is a single instance of expertise/double proficiency that does not also grant or require proficiency (and if you have "proficiency in a skill means [you] can add [your] proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill"). So options 1 and 3 are actually the same.
Though also, while finding that quote I noticed in the rules that adding half proficiency is indeed "adding your proficiency bonus" (which is also why JOAT and RA can't stack), so option 2 is the RAW answer.
If reliable talent was meant to not include Jack of all trades, it should have been worded: "an ability check of which you are proficient in."
This would also mean that your initiative rolls couldn't be lower than a 10 as well. Interesting.
Yeah Saga, your 3 is why you can't trust the JC tweets to answer this. In that bottom tweet, JC says that JOAT and RA can't apply to the same skill, because "you can't add your proficiency bonus, or any part of it, to a roll more than once." So by JC's own admission, adding "half your proficiency bonus" to a skill from JOAT or RA counts as adding "your proficiency bonus" to that skill... so it should then qualify for RT! If JOAT and RA don't count as adding "your proficiency bonus," then nothing stops you from applying both JOAT and RA to the same skill...
So either he's wrong about JOAT and RA not stacking, or he's wrong about RT not applying to JOAT/RA skills, or there's entirely unwritten language or "intent" that we're forced to respect which somehow reconciles his inconsistent positions.
Unless JOAT and RA add part of your proficiency bonus, buy not all of it.
And actually, when I think about it: I don't think there is a single instance of expertise/double proficiency that does not also grant or require proficiency (and if you have "proficiency in a skill means [you] can add [your] proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill"). So options 1 and 3 are actually the same.
Though also, while finding that quote I noticed in the rules that adding half proficiency is indeed "adding your proficiency bonus" (which is also why JOAT and RA can't stack), so option 2 is the RAW answer.
If reliable talent was meant to not include Jack of all trades, it should have been worded: "an ability check of which you are proficient in."
This would also mean that your initiative rolls couldn't be lower than a 10 as well. Interesting.
After consideration, I agree that RT applying to JOAT and RA is RAW. I've found that the majority of cases where the rules are more vague (and thus there are more arguments about how they interact) is with MC and feats. The fact that RT applies to Expertise is pretty well established since Rogue has both and the interaction should have been considered. Expertise is granted prior to Reliable Talent, which would make me think that Reliable Talent rules would be more specific and should include a clause to rule out Expertise if that interaction wasn't intended. This rules out OPs interpretation 1.
I agree with the OPs RAW read that either RT should apply to JOAT and RA, or that JOAT and RA should stack, since the same wording is used. Compare:
Reliable Talent
By 11th level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.
And from Chapter 7 of PHB, proficiency bonus:
Your proficiency bonus can’t be added to a single die roll or other number more than once. For example, if two different rules say you can add your proficiency bonus to a Wisdom saving throw, you nevertheless add the bonus only once when you make the save.
"Your proficiency bonus" is used in both instances. Therefore, either JOAT applies the proficiency bonus and RT affects those rolls or it doesn't and can therefore stack with RA. Those are the RAW possibilities. I'm more inclined to agree that RT does interact with JOAT, but allowing "free proficiency" in Athletics, Stealth, Acrobatics, and Sleight of Hand for a 9th level character might have less impact than Reliable Talent for everything. Initiative checks... could be interesting, but not too dissimilar from something like War Magic Wizards Tactical Wit. At any rate, this means OPs interpretation #2.
My inclination is to believe that OPs interpretation #3 is RAI. That's what it feels like is being said when I read each ability out of context and without applying the "Your proficiency bonus" logic used above.
I don't know what the RAW is, and others seem to have that covered, but I did notice that you have to be level 20 to have all three. I'm not sure it would do any harm for them all to work together at that level.
well remarkable athlete won't work with reliable talent raw as the rules are clear that adding your proficiency bonus or a multiple or half can only be done once. and for that particular rule adding half your proficiency is clearly a case of adding your proficiency bonus. the question in raw is if that point regarding it counting as adding your proficiency bonus in the context of that rule is meant to imply more broadly to the game as a whole. in the absence of clearer language the statement does not seem to be limited to that one interaction. at my table i'd allow it if i were ever to be crazy enough to allow players to get to level 13, the earliest you can get to the point it matters. i generally don't let my campaigns get past level 5 though and often stop at 4 as 3rd level spells and beyond are broken beyond saving. sometimes i'll let the wizard have a session or two of fireball and hypnotic battern bs but not normally
the rules are clear that adding your proficiency bonus or a multiple or half can only be done once. and for that particular rule adding half your proficiency is clearly a case of adding your proficiency bonus. the question in raw is if that point regarding it counting as adding your proficiency bonus in the context of that rule is meant to imply more broadly to the game as a whole. in the absence of clearer language the statement does not seem to be limited to that one interaction.
The rules seem clear to me that adding your proficiency bonus, integrally or modified (x2 or 1/2) still count as adding it, to which you are limited to once per check. So when you make a check and can add your Proficiency Bonus, it's usually either;
1. Half Bonus
2. Full Bonus
3. Double Bonus
Proficiency Bonus: Your proficiency bonus can’t be added to a single die roll or other number more than once. Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be modified (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it. If a circumstance suggests that your proficiency bonus applies more than once to the same roll or that it should be multiplied more than once, you nevertheless add it only once, multiply it only once, and halve it only once.
After reading through this thread and the related features I agree with Plauguescarred. RAW is pretty clear that adding any amount of your proficiency bonus meets the qualification for Reliable Talent(RT). So Remarkable Athlete (RA) and Jack of all Trades (JOAT) with with RT but they do not work with each other.
If we take Jeremy's tweets as RAI then the issue is only with how RT is written. If you reword RT from "Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus . . ." to "Whenever you make an ability check with one of your skill or tool proficiencies . . ." I think that would fit the intent Jeremy expresses better. This is based off of how Expertise is written to be limited to skills the character already has proficiency in.
There has been an official ruling in Sage Advice Compendium since then regarding the interaction of these game elements;
Can the rogue’s Reliable Talent feature be used in conjunction with Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades? No. Each of these features has a precondition for its use; Reliable Talent activates when you make an ability check that uses your proficiency bonus, whereas the other two features activate when you make an ability check that doesn’t use your proficiency bonus. In other words, a check that qualifies for Reliable Talent doesn’t qualify for Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades. And Remarkable Athlete and Jack of All Trades don’t work with each other, since you can add your proficiency bonus, or any portion thereof, only once to a roll.
The ruling seems reasonable, but the don’t agree it’s logical per the different wording for the features.
JACK OF ALL TRADES Starting at 2nd level, you can add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to any ability check you make that doesn't already include your proficiency bonus.
RELIABLE TALENT By 11th level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9or lower as a 10.
Neither of the features have language that preclude their use with with each other so far as their parameters are met. Jack of all trades let’s you add proficiency bonus, rounded down, do any ability check your not “proficient” in. Reliable talent lets you take 10 if you roll a 9 or lower on an ability check that you’re adding your proficiency bonus to.
if they errata’d jack of all trades to say the following then they actually would preclude each other. JACK OF ALL TRADES Starting at 2nd level, you GAIN A BONUS EQUAL TO half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to any ability check you make that doesn't already include your proficiency bonus.
a bonus equal to proficiency is not actually proficiency. They’ve done this with a few other features and it works fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
At 11th level, a Rogue gets Reliable Talent ("RT"), which provides:
At 2nd level, a Bard gets Jack of All Trades ("JOAT"), which provides:
A Champion's Remarkable Athlete ("RA") is similar to JOAT, but more limited:
The question is, is adding "half your proficiency bonus" to an ability check count as adding "your proficiency bonus" to an ability check for the purpose of RT?
I am aware of the Sage Advice on this, which I am specifically completely uninterested in, because JC appears to be confused about whether he is being asked about Reliable Talent or Remarkable Athlete, contradicts his own earlier answers, and in any event does not couch his ruling in the the rule text of either ability. As usual, JT tweets are not rules.
The reason I think that RT does apply to all abilities benefiting from JOAT, is that if adding "half your proficiency bonus" is not the same as "your proficiency bonus," then that would argue for ruling that skills for which "your proficiency bonus is doubled" is not the same as "your proficiency bonus" either... in other words, RT would not apply to anything you have Expertise on, if it only applies to skills which you add no more/no less than your proficiency bonus to. That doesn't seem RAI. And if RAI is that RT includes skills for which "your proficiency bonus is doubled" I don't see any language that would suggest that line wouldn't be drawn to also include "half your proficiency bonus" or anything else which provides a bonus that references and is based upon your proficiency bonus.
The options I see are:
Thoughts?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think it is option 3. My reason being this analogy:
A soda can be bought by anyone who has 1$. A person who has 50¢ obviously can't buy a soda, while a person who has 2$ obviously can.
We all know the rules aren't clearly written in a way that you can't argue over almost any rule. But I think this both logically makes sense and is RAI.
[Edit]Also, took a look at that tweet after. JC seems to have been saying the same thing (option 3) in all of them.
I also agree on 3 being the intent.
it was intended you’d need to be proficient in something prior to being expertise....
when 5e first came out anyways.
Blank
I'm inclined to go with option 3 as well. Jack of All Trades isn't full proficiency so it doesn't count but expertise does because it's proficiency twice.
It's definitely a muddy answer. I can see reasoning for all of the options and I'd be okay with a DM ruling any of them in any game I'm in.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I know I’m not really answering the question of what I think the RAW is, but here’s how I’d run it:
1) Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete are applicable to checks that you’re not proficient in.
2) Reliable Talent is applicable to checks that you ARE proficient in.
3) Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete don’t both apply to the same check because I don’t think they should.
Gun to my head, asking for my best interpretation of actual RAW, I’d keep 1 and 2 and discard 3. “Includes your proficiency bonus” reads like a “greater than or equal to” condition to me. Taking it this way makes me feel like I’m forcing myself to allow Reliable Talent when both JoAT and RA apply, and I guess I am saying that I think that’s probably RAW, but I wouldn’t rule that way even in an AL game.
Yeah Saga, your 3 is why you can't trust the JC tweets to answer this. In that bottom tweet, JC says that JOAT and RA can't apply to the same skill, because "you can't add your proficiency bonus, or any part of it, to a roll more than once." So by JC's own admission, adding "half your proficiency bonus" to a skill from JOAT or RA counts as adding "your proficiency bonus" to that skill... so it should then qualify for RT! If JOAT and RA don't count as adding "your proficiency bonus," then nothing stops you from applying both JOAT and RA to the same skill...
So either he's wrong about JOAT and RA not stacking, or he's wrong about RT not applying to JOAT/RA skills, or there's entirely unwritten language or "intent" that we're forced to respect which somehow reconciles his inconsistent positions.
That all sounds pretty complicated to me. Trying to decipher what was "intended" never ends up being as obvious as everyone claims, and proficiency, expertise, other expertise-like abilities, JOAT, RA.... they all one way or another add your proficiency bonus (or a multiple thereof) to a skill, so I would be inclined to trigger RT on any of the above.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think that’s a reasonable way to take the language, but I think it’s an unreasonable way to run the game, which is why I say “are proficient in” rather than “apply your proficiency bonus to” haha
Allowing an at-least 11th level rogue to never roll under an 11 on any ability check ever for the low low price of two levels of bard is an untenable proposition. Other people can do whatever they want at their tables of course, I’m only speaking to the kind of game I want to run myself.
I'm inclined to agree that it leads to a bad result, but I'm not sure that is enough to say that that isn't what the rule says. Bad rules can and should be errata'd to remove unintended consequences, but that doesn't mean that players should bend over backwards to excuse the rule that is currently written. Even when the authors communicate that their intent wasn't to create that bad result, in my opinion the proper remedy is an errata, not reading the current rule to say something it doesn't.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Oh yeah, for sure. Like I said I think it’s a reasonable way to take the language, and I absolutely think the writers should be taken to task for their poor job at writing clear rules.
But I do think a more reasonable way to take the language is to take “includes” as “greater than or equal to” as most other posters here have done. If my proficiency bonus is 3, I add 6 with expertise and 1 with Jack of All Trades. It feels a lot easier to argue that 6 includes 3 than that 1 includes 3.
But again, I want to stress that I do not think there’s anything to rule out the idea that half your proficiency bonus counts your proficiency bonus for such purposes.
Unless JOAT and RA add part of your proficiency bonus, buy not all of it.
And actually, when I think about it: I don't think there is a single instance of expertise/double proficiency that does not also grant or require proficiency (and if you have "proficiency in a skill means [you] can add [your] proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill"). So options 1 and 3 are actually the same.
Though also, while finding that quote I noticed in the rules that adding half proficiency is indeed "adding your proficiency bonus" (which is also why JOAT and RA can't stack), so option 2 is the RAW answer.
If reliable talent was meant to not include Jack of all trades, it should have been worded: "an ability check of which you are proficient in."
This would also mean that your initiative rolls couldn't be lower than a 10 as well. Interesting.
After consideration, I agree that RT applying to JOAT and RA is RAW. I've found that the majority of cases where the rules are more vague (and thus there are more arguments about how they interact) is with MC and feats. The fact that RT applies to Expertise is pretty well established since Rogue has both and the interaction should have been considered. Expertise is granted prior to Reliable Talent, which would make me think that Reliable Talent rules would be more specific and should include a clause to rule out Expertise if that interaction wasn't intended. This rules out OPs interpretation 1.
I agree with the OPs RAW read that either RT should apply to JOAT and RA, or that JOAT and RA should stack, since the same wording is used. Compare:
Reliable Talent
By 11th level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.
And from Chapter 7 of PHB, proficiency bonus:
Your proficiency bonus can’t be added to a single die roll or other number more than once. For example, if two different rules say you can add your proficiency bonus to a Wisdom saving throw, you nevertheless add the bonus only once when you make the save.
"Your proficiency bonus" is used in both instances. Therefore, either JOAT applies the proficiency bonus and RT affects those rolls or it doesn't and can therefore stack with RA. Those are the RAW possibilities. I'm more inclined to agree that RT does interact with JOAT, but allowing "free proficiency" in Athletics, Stealth, Acrobatics, and Sleight of Hand for a 9th level character might have less impact than Reliable Talent for everything. Initiative checks... could be interesting, but not too dissimilar from something like War Magic Wizards Tactical Wit. At any rate, this means OPs interpretation #2.
My inclination is to believe that OPs interpretation #3 is RAI. That's what it feels like is being said when I read each ability out of context and without applying the "Your proficiency bonus" logic used above.
Does RA or JOAT let you add your proficiency bonus to skills? No. they do not. There's your answer :)
This was answered well over a year ago.
To which the answer is yes. Adding part of your proficiency bonus IS adding your proficiency bonus. At least according to the rules.
I don't know what the RAW is, and others seem to have that covered, but I did notice that you have to be level 20 to have all three. I'm not sure it would do any harm for them all to work together at that level.
<Insert clever signature here>
well remarkable athlete won't work with reliable talent raw as the rules are clear that adding your proficiency bonus or a multiple or half can only be done once. and for that particular rule adding half your proficiency is clearly a case of adding your proficiency bonus. the question in raw is if that point regarding it counting as adding your proficiency bonus in the context of that rule is meant to imply more broadly to the game as a whole. in the absence of clearer language the statement does not seem to be limited to that one interaction. at my table i'd allow it if i were ever to be crazy enough to allow players to get to level 13, the earliest you can get to the point it matters. i generally don't let my campaigns get past level 5 though and often stop at 4 as 3rd level spells and beyond are broken beyond saving. sometimes i'll let the wizard have a session or two of fireball and hypnotic battern bs but not normally
The rules seem clear to me that adding your proficiency bonus, integrally or modified (x2 or 1/2) still count as adding it, to which you are limited to once per check. So when you make a check and can add your Proficiency Bonus, it's usually either;
1. Half Bonus
2. Full Bonus
3. Double Bonus
After reading through this thread and the related features I agree with Plauguescarred. RAW is pretty clear that adding any amount of your proficiency bonus meets the qualification for Reliable Talent(RT). So Remarkable Athlete (RA) and Jack of all Trades (JOAT) with with RT but they do not work with each other.
If we take Jeremy's tweets as RAI then the issue is only with how RT is written. If you reword RT from "Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus . . ." to "Whenever you make an ability check with one of your skill or tool proficiencies . . ." I think that would fit the intent Jeremy expresses better. This is based off of how Expertise is written to be limited to skills the character already has proficiency in.
There has been an official ruling in Sage Advice Compendium since then regarding the interaction of these game elements;
Looks to me as a very reasonable (and logical) ruling.
The ruling seems reasonable, but the don’t agree it’s logical per the different wording for the features.
JACK OF ALL TRADES
Starting at 2nd level, you can add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to any ability check you make that doesn't already include your proficiency bonus.
RELIABLE TALENT
By 11th level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9or lower as a 10.
Neither of the features have language that preclude their use with with each other so far as their parameters are met. Jack of all trades let’s you add proficiency bonus, rounded down, do any ability check your not “proficient” in. Reliable talent lets you take 10 if you roll a 9 or lower on an ability check that you’re adding your proficiency bonus to.
if they errata’d jack of all trades to say the following then they actually would preclude each other.
JACK OF ALL TRADES
Starting at 2nd level, you GAIN A BONUS EQUAL TO half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to any ability check you make that doesn't already include your proficiency bonus.
a bonus equal to proficiency is not actually proficiency. They’ve done this with a few other features and it works fine.