"Suitable for pictorial photography" is not an absolute. It is in the eye of the beholder. Depending on the luminance scale of the scene and the desired tonality, suitable? - perhaps. Acceptable? Perhaps. Optimal? Unlikely.
Tech Pan was a little easier to tame than some of the current utra-high resolution films that can apparently outresolve Tech Pan with finer grain (CMS 20 for example). The tradeoff is a relatively short tonal scale (and very low speed). No matter how much you are able to reduce contrast, the exposure scale will be quite limited in comparison to general purpose films. No matter how fine the grain is, or how high the possible resolution is (and that includes Tech Pan), prints will not look like they were made from large format negatives.
Technidol was a POTA variant and worked ok. There are several other developer/development options and with any of these films testing will be required because you can get pretty different curves and speeds with the variety of developers.
In my opinion you answered your own question when you said you don't mind a little grain. If you are looking for the "best image possible", I would say overall print tonality and quality will be far more satisfying with a regular film. All photographic materials involve compromises. For general photography, a regular film will have more grain than a "document" film, but virtually every other characteristic will blow the document film away (and of course you can use bigger film to reduce grain, increase detail, sharpness). Which tradeoff appeals more to you?