I'd be reticent to make it this good as this is an 11th level Rogue ability. 

Removing uncertainty from the game is, IMO, not necessarily a good idea, either, particularly for stress situations like combat (remember that Athletics is used to attack when Pushing or Grappling, and it or Acrobatics is used to escape a Grapple) or a chase scene. I get how the fickle D20 can make for some kind of ridiculous situations, such as having to have the weak Wizard open a door when the Fighter fails, but no uncertainty can really end up becoming quite boring. 

I totally agree about getting rid of unnecessary rolls, but in that case I think reviving Take 10 makes the most sense. When you're not in a stress situation, you can Take 10 on proficient skills and perform about as well as your typical performance is. That way the character with +9 in Athletics can pretty routinely lift heavy weights without much trouble but can't just throw foes all over the place in combat without making a roll. 

No uncertainty in stress situations is, however, a problem. This gets particularly true with Reliable Talent, which, if I were redesigning the game, I'd nuke from orbit and replace with a Short Rest ability that was more limited in use but really cool when it applied. Maybe something like: "You may replace the roll of any ability check with which you have proficiency with a 20. No roll is made in this case. You may not use this ability again until a Short or Long Rest." I'd probably have it appear earlier than 11th level and then gain another use later on, kind of like the Fighter's Indomitable. That way the rogue can feel cool from time to time but doesn't get to run the tables on whatever they're proficient at over and over.  

Another way to sweeten Reliable Talent a bit, would be to just change it to be a little better.

Instead of treating any roll of 9 or less as if it were a 10 .... let them treat any roll of 14 of less as if it were a 15.  Or, to write it differently: they get to auto-succeed if the DC is equal to or less than fifteen (15) plus their modifier(s).

Quote from _Pax_ >>

Another way to sweeten Reliable Talent a bit, would be to just change it to be a little better.

Instead of treating any roll of 9 or less as if it were a 10 .... let them treat any roll of 14 of less as if it were a 15.  Or, to write it differently: they get to auto-succeed if the DC is equal to or less than fifteen (15) plus their modifier(s).

 There is a bit of a difference: Reliable Talent works with contested checks (i.e. Stealth vs Perception; or grapple) as well...

Then don't take the second wording, just go with "treat any roll of 14 or less as though it were a 15" wording.

So the idea here is to effectively remove the concept of "You should succeed, but you might fail" which I can't say I'm a fan of. Still an interesting idea that points to a larger issue, which is pointless skill checks. Personally, what for scenarios like this, is have poor roles still succeed at the core concept, but with some kind of penalty: i.e. you picked the lock, but it took a while and now the guards have rotated shifts; you jumped the gap but stepped on some unsteady ground and the ledge behind you collapsed making it harder for the rest of the party; etc.

Quote from tadious >>

I like the idea but if you're getting an automatic success I might go with a DC of 5 + your skill modifier. That way you get out of the DC 10 checks but not the DC 15 which is medium difficulty, at least without a very specialized ability. I typically apply this by just not having certain people roll certain checks for something that'd be trivial especially once they get above level 10. The rogue with expertise doesn't have to roll for picking a DC 13 lock etc. It's just too easy and a do you roll a nat 1 check at a certain point. 

 I like the 5+mod, because those are the ones where you are very likely to succeed. If the DC is 10+mod, you only succeed half the time, so it doesn’t seem similar to “auto-succeed”. If you can climb that cliff half of your tries, you are going to fall the other half, and this rule kinda makes that boring. But 5+mod is a great idea.

It is very similar mechanically to taking 10 or taking 20. but it is important to state that it takes TIME. Time should be a valuable commodity to the party and they should understand the amount that they have to sacrifice in order to take 10 or 20. I don't see any mention of it taking time in the base post. This isn't a bad thing necessarily but is certainly not the way I would implement something like this.

I like this rule, but I do not want to use it all the time. I still like the randomness of rolls. However, I think I might implement the rule as a use for inspiration. I get tired of inspiration rolls being two low numbers so many times. It feels very uninspiring. If you could use inspiration to use your proficient skills to automatically succeed, I think that would make players more likely to want to earn and use inspiration.

Quote from indigo6776 >>

have poor roles still succeed at the core concept, but with some kind of penalty: i.e. you picked the lock, but it took a while and now the guards have rotated shifts; you jumped the gap but stepped on some unsteady ground and the ledge behind you collapsed making it harder for the rest of the party; etc.

 I know a few other RPGs that use this rule, and it seems to work pretty well.

Edit: I also read about “blaming the circumstances”. For example: Instead of having the Rogue with +7 thieves tools fail to pick the DC 10 lock, have their lock picks break. Or maybe the lock is too old and rusted to pick. Perhaps the fighter failed to make that jump because there was a sudden earthquake, ETC.

What do you mean pretty soon? Like you would not be able to stop yourself?

Quote from CapnSkillet >>

I like this rule, but I do not want to use it all the time. I still like the randomness of rolls. However, I think I might implement the rule as a use for inspiration. I get tired of inspiration rolls being two low numbers so many times. It feels very uninspiring. If you could use inspiration to use your proficient skills to automatically succeed, I think that would make players more likely to want to earn and use inspiration.

 That's a good idea. Far too often Inspiration seems to crap out right when you need it. Having it be an "unnatural 20" (so no crit) might be kind of nice. You don't get to roll at all, you just get a 20 instead. This might let a character out of some kind of save lock in the event they're stuck with something they're weak at or succeed when they absolutely have to. It could also be a good way to represent some character abilities, essentially giving them a shadow point of Inspiration per long rest (or whatever) that's only applicable to a defined set of tasks. 

Something similar existed in 3.5, commonly referred to as taking a 10. You could only do it in situations where there wasn't any immediate time pressure, and only for low DC checks.

Quote from crimfan07 >>

Quote from CapnSkillet >>

I like this rule, but I do not want to use it all the time. I still like the randomness of rolls. However, I think I might implement the rule as a use for inspiration. I get tired of inspiration rolls being two low numbers so many times. It feels very uninspiring. If you could use inspiration to use your proficient skills to automatically succeed, I think that would make players more likely to want to earn and use inspiration.

 That's a good idea. Far too often Inspiration seems to crap out right when you need it. Having it be an "unnatural 20" (so no crit) might be kind of nice. You don't get to roll at all, you just get a 20 instead. This might let a character out of some kind of save lock in the event they're stuck with something they're weak at or succeed when they absolutely have to. It could also be a good way to represent some character abilities, essentially giving them a shadow point of Inspiration per long rest (or whatever) that's only applicable to a defined set of tasks. 

 As per (often misinterpreted or ignored) rules, the only times a "natural 20" counts as crit are attack rolls and death saving throws, not during skill/ability checks (or "normal" saving throws) anyway...

@Edem How to interpret a natural 20 I would think is up to the DM running the game. If they decide that it provides automatic success on whatever is being attempted, that is in their prerogative to do so despite what the rules may be as written.

i think that if the roll is contested you wouldnt be able to consider it as auto-pass.

I'm going to have to float this by my table. We don't have any rogues, so I don't see this stepping on anyone's toes at the moment. If we did, I'd probably say you get two "Talented" Skills that this would apply to. Great idea to play with, thank you!

Quote from PercivalBraelin >>

This isn't a new thing, or even a house rule, really.  This is the same thing as "Taking 10".  That's been around since before 5e.  A character that is performing a familiar check can take 10 instead of rolling if they aren't under pressure.  It's left up to the group to determine what constitutes being under pressure.

I really like this... and would give my players the option to use it, but BEFORE knowing the DC (at least explicitly... they could have had a rough estimation through context)

As for the subject of the article, i usually treat a failed check as part of the story than just a failure : it's not that you're bad at lock picking/investigating it's just that the lock was fused/there was nothing to find. the binarity of pass/fail already so strong in D&D would only be reinforced.
But as a GM, i do reserve the right to not have the player make the check if their skill is high enough anywasy.

Yup, "Taking 10" and "Taking 20" were rules that were trashed in 5E. Taking 20 was an excellent rule that allowed a player to auto succeed and auto fail at the same time because it implied that enough rolls were done to get a 20 and a 1. So it could only be used when there was lots of time and no consequence of failure. It adds a grounded "real" feeling to exploration.

Taking 10 on the other hand is good for some checks (like ones with no consequence for failure), but it runs the risk of taking the fun out of failure. 

I called it an "unnatural twenty" just to indicate that it wouldn't trigger a special effect of a natural 20. Most rolls have no special effect, of course. 

Quote from Areostar2412 >>

I’m not sure how I feel about giving every character an 11th-level rouge ability. Still, neat idea.

 WOULD EVERYBODY STOP SPELLING ROGUE AS ROUGE