I only use the Berlin interpretation to help determine whether or not a game adheres to the "classical" roguelike genre. On the other hand, there are plenty of games that use drastically different mechanics and are still comparable to what the original Rogue expected of the player. That is:
- Endurance (many actions have short and long-term effects on a game's outcome: e.g., no quicksave/quickload)
- Creativity (creating and manipulating scenarios that would surprise even the developers: the game should be intentionally constructed to allow for this)
- Willingness to learn (tons of things to figure out as the game progresses, tons of nuances to explore)
I believe that it's vital to broaden the roots of what a roguelike is, even if that means coming up with an entirely different name that characteristically separates it from classical counterparts. There are, in fact, two suitable examples of this in the past. The first and well-known case is the FPS (first person shooter) genre. This name is straight-forward: the two critical features for any FPS are a first-person perspective and a focus on combat (traditionally with guns). However, as a result of Doom's booming popularity, thereby solidifying itself as the dominant FPS of its time, many of the FPS games that followed were actually nicknamed "Doom clones", even if their aesthetics (and sometimes even mechanics) diverged greatly from Doom.
The second, more recent, example is the genre that most of you probably know best via League of Legends: the MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena). The genre's roots can be found in a Starcraft custom scenario called "Aeon of Strife" (AoS), though popularity didn't boom until Warcraft III and its custom map "Defense of the Ancients" (DotA). Even though a lot of people may know the genre by MOBA (Wikipedia also suggests action real-time strategy, or ARTS, as a name), there are plenty, including myself, that consider these games either "AoS clones" or "DotA clones" (or variations thereof), simply because of the influence those games had on the genre. Ultimately, however, it made sense to come up with a "good" name for the genre, in order to broaden the genre's outlook and future.
So I'm not exactly saying we should drop the roguelike name itself: in fact, Krice's stringent criteria (or at least something similar) may be the way to go with regards to roguelikes in the truest sense. What I'm trying to get at is that we may want to look into finding a better title that describes all of the games that have been influenced by Rogue and its direct children. It could help distinguish the genre in a way that merely calling anything like a game that's like a game that's like a game that's like Rogue doesn't establish effectively.
But to actually be on-topic, I'd consider the lack of random mapping a pretty significant point against calling it a roguelike. In fact, given the other elements you stated, it sounds kind of like a mix between Final Fantasy Tactics and Neverwinter Nights. That said, I'd still think of it being "roguelike enough" to fit in the Roguebasin we have.