I'll start with the easier angle. I recently sold my 17-40, because I rarely found a use for it after getting a full frame camera, it was simply too wide for the type of landscapes I usually shoot. I would therefore suggest something in the 24mm sort of range, particularly as you also mentioned finding your 14mm too wide. I also wouldn't rule out the 24mm L f/1.4 MkII, it's just as sharp as the 24mm TS/E and Zeiss 21mm when stopped down beyond f/2.8 according to data I've seen. It's certainly sharp enough for me and is in a totally different league to the 24-105. It's also cheaper than the TS/E and probably slightly cheaper than the Zeiss. I went through a similar decisions making process over the past couple of years and after a protracted period, went for the conventional 24mm because of its potential for Aurora photorgaphy and not for any useage or technical reasons. All three lenses are about the best you can get in that range and there is very little difference between the three in terms of image quality. The Zeiss probably has a look that many prefer, the conventional 24mm can be used for low light photography and not just landscapes and the TS/E of course is useful for shorter exposures and can be used more in the aperture sweet spot when tilted.
In terms of filters. I am certainly not a fan of HDR, I've used it in the past and it can be used effectively, but it takes time to learn how to get good results and even when done well, there are some scenes where it doesn't suit at all (e.g. snow or solid blue skies with a high contrast transition such as in silhouettes). The way that the majority use it, it is more like a cheap man's method of filtration and not the occasional tool it should be. Also, because of its widespread use, if you want to look different to the masses, then I would avoid it. As for cost of filters, $1000 seems very steep (especially for Hi-Tech). While it would be nice to have a full set of filters, I don't think it is necessary. I would pick and choose, then add to your collection gradually. If you shoot a lot of seascapes or flat landscapes, get a set of three hard grads, if you shoot a lot of mountains or hills, get a set of soft grads. If you were really stuck for cash, then you could achieve a fair bit from one or two 3 stop grads (a hard and a soft maybe). I would also get a circular polariser, but leave any solid ND filters for a later date when you want to start experimenting with slower shutterspeeds.
One thing to bear in mind though. With the Lee system (I'm not sure about Hi-Tech), you can add a second adaptor to the front of the first. This allows you to angle the filters in two separate directions, for example to filter either side of a mountain or to use a CPL in one direction and a grad in another. However, with the 100mm filter set, the corners of the second adaptor are visible in a 24mm lens.
Filters will allow you more latitude in dynamic range and even if the filtration isn't strong enough for the final output, often they provide enough DR compression to preserve enough detail for recovery in your RAW convertor, where you can add further graduation.