You know best what is best for you, but your magnifications seem far to granular to me. I bet you spend a lot of time swapping eyepieces.
And Nagler I think is giving good advice
I think it is far better to plan using field stop sizes, and while Nagler used to recommend a 50% difference in field stop size, I think this is also to granular, and I recommend step of 75% or even double/half. And in this case, it appears that Nagler has made a similar recommendation because the eyepieces he recommends, the 31mm Nagler (42mm field stop) and the 13mm Ethos (22mm field stop) is a 2:1 ratio. Now I might go with the 31/17/ 10 if you think you need that kind of high power, but the 31mm and 13E will make for minimal fussing around with eyepieces, so I think Al has given the advice I am giving, which is that you can go overboard with granular magnication, and it is better to think in true field steps (field stop size) and 1.7x to 2x is typically a very good size true field step and keeps one from constantly searching for the correct field size.
If it does not fit in the wider field, then swapping to the next largest field stop will almost always ensure that it does. Jumping magnifcation by 25% will almost never result in enough change in appearance to make it worth it.
Otherwise, you spend a lot of money on eyepieces and spend a lot of time swapping eyepieces, and frankly once you have framed the object, there is nothing to gain in the object itself for increasing the size of the field around it, and if the goal is to enjoy the object in it's background, then a bigger downward step lets you capture more of that background and in my experience, a 50% change in field size generally does not change things all that much.