More options should help.I’m fortunate that my players aren’t really power gamers or optimizers, so not having any clearly better and worse options is not a problem (if anything, it’s a boon), but there are some areas that are pretty lacking.
I was talking to one of my players last night. He’s playing a sorcerer with a draconic bloodline. He likes to play gishes, so he wants to do stuff with his character’s dragon claws, but the options aren’t there. They don’t count as weapons, so he can’t just dip into a martial class. If he went monk/sorcerer, the monk’s unarmed attacks would be way better, and it’s basically end up a different character. Even Bespell Weapon doesn’t work (requires a weapon). I really hope the APG can fill in some of these gaps (since I run a homebrew setting and don’t use anything from the Lost Omens line).
In your case, I'd just write some house rules for the player. It doesn't seem to me that dragon claws would throw the game off. Dragon class seem kind of weak. You could boost the damage to 1d6 or 1d8 and likely be fine. Then I'd let him design some item similar to the monk item handwraps to allow him to make the claws more effective. Then I might design him some class feats to allow him to boost his claws.
Given the framework it would be easy to let him design some feats within the class framework to allow him to use dragon claws effectively. The options aren't there initially. The PF2 framework is pretty flexible for different aesthetics as long as you keep the power relative. In my opinion, the balance allows for a huge variation in aesthetic options that the player could write themselves within the class framework without breaking the game. It is one of the reasons why I say there is more variation for character concepts due to the balanced power, just not as much variation in power to make some players feel like they're superheroes like say PF1 or 5E. You can reskin almost any power to make it look and feel like you want it to feel and run it just fine.