So then, as a player who is turned into a beast/monster by either the polymorph spell or an ability like wild shape, are you making an unarmed strike, like how all PC races with natural weapons do (Aaracra, Tabaxi, Minotaur, ect.) Or will they fall under this "natural weapons" thing you quoted to me, which isn't in the books, but the same advice. (Which yes most of that I believe is strate from JC himself, the lead designer of 5e)
So this would lead me to conclude the intended breakdown of attacks are: melee or ranged; spell or weapon (even though I don't like this); and weapon can be broken down into manufactured (actual weapons) and natural ... While there is a debate on whether natural weapons are actual weapons or non-weapons like unarmedstrikes...
Which of my hole point in a nutshell... Just remove that hole category from weapon attack to natural attack or something.
I think this might be an instance where they went to get in trying to simplify things in 5e, that it made it more complicated.
Tabaxi and others such as the Satyr, Lizzardman, etc aren't making unarmed attacks because their natural weapons are considered as weapons. They are making a Melee weapon attack as per the rules because the claws / bite etc are treated the same as a manufactured weapon in this regard. I find it very bizarre that unarmed strikes are not considered as weapon attacks, they should have put them all together in my opinion.
Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, explicitly so. And the natural weapons of races like the tabaxi are unarmed strikes, again explicitly so.
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
This allows for a [one] cantrip with a casting time of an action. Xanathar's guide changed the wording a bit and says
If you want to cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 bonus action, remember that you can’t cast any other spells before or after it on the same turn, except for cantrips with a casting time of 1 action.
So if you play with Xanathar's guide, you're free to cast a bonus action spell on your turn and also cast as many cantrips with a casting time of an action as your action economy allows.
This is one of those this I think they should have brought with then from 3.5. the manufacturered and natural weapon difference officially. That way there's still the 2 types of attacks: spell and weapon. And unarmed strikes would fall under natural, so when they want to exclude unarmed strikes from something, like sneak attack and smite, all they would need to do was add in the manufactured part of a weapon attack.
It's super muddy because PC races can have "natural weapons" given to them which is currently stated as a unarmed strike making then non-weapons (a flavor fail IMO).
So then, if a paladin is transformed into a beast, they make a melee weapon attack with the beast's natural weapon, does that mean they can use smite?
It's been a few days I know, but now I've done some more reading.
As a player what you laid out appears to be true. But never once in that section does it imply or say that a monster makes a melee weapon attack. In fact it says "A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part."
So right there in that wording theres a 3rd type of melee attack.
There isn't a single monster that makes a non-weapon, non-spell melee attack. I challenge you to find 1.
As a bonus action, you can empower the tattoo for 1 minute. For the duration, each of your melee attacks with a weapon or an unarmed strike ..."
This wording to me seems to imply that a weapon in a melee attack is different from an unmarked strike on a melee attack. Or to rephrase, two different types of melee attacks, weapon and non weapon.
[Snip]
Yeah, the wording here is nice and clear, I wish the rules were always like this. Doesn't change anything about unarmed strikes being melee weapon attacks though.
Edit: So just looking at core material, a player can be turned into a monster like a Wolf via polymorph or the Druid's wild shape feature. They will gain the bite attack. As far as I'm aware that is not an "unarmed strike" as described above, but it is a melee attack.
[Snip]
But then it becomes a flavor fail IMO to call them natural weapons but not count as weapons (because unarmed strikes aren't weapons).
Correct. Monsters usually use natural weapons which are generally not unarmed strikes. Playable races that get natural weapons can specifically use them for unarmed strikes, but they are also natural weapons (which are weapons).
Unarmed strikes are non weapon that make weapon attacks.
Natural weapon features races have are unarmed strikes.
Monster and beasts you fight have natural weapons, but are considered weapons per one of the sage advice.
So a Tabaxi PC claw attack in considered a non weapon. An NPC Tabaxi claw attack is considered a weapon.
I find this odd.
No. Attacks by PC or NPC Tabaxi using their claws are BOTH considered melee weapon attacks and NEITHER are considered attacks with a weapon - it doesn't matter whether it is a PC or NPC.
Here is the text from the PHB on unarmed strikes.
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons)."
An unarmed strike is still a melee weapon attack BUT it is not considered an attack with a weapon. It doesn't matter whether it is a PC or NPC that is making the attack.
The sage advice compendium clarified the ruling on smiting and unarmed strikes or if you like melee weapon attacks that do not use a weapon.
"[NEW] Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike?
No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes. Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack,and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon. If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice."
Here is the text from divine smite:
"Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage."
So the issue with smite and unarmed strikes is not that unarmed strikes aren't melee weapon attacks - they ARE - but unarmed strikes are NOT attacks with a weapon.
In the monster manual, all the attacks are categorized as melee or ranged, weapon or spell attacks - however, many would not be categorized as attacks with a weapon unless a weapon is listed. If the MM says bite or claw - then it is a melee weapon attack but NOT an attack with a weapon. If the MM stat block says melee weapon attack long sword then that is a melee weapon attack WITH a weapon.
From PHB p146
"WEAPONS Your class grants proficiency in certain weapons, reflecting both the class's focus and the tools you are most likely to use. Whether you favor a longsword or a longbow, your weapon and your ability to wield it effectively can mean the difference between life and death white adventuring. The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess. Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance."
The rules cover what are considered weapons in 5e. Bites, claws, and unarmed strikes aren't weapons though they do make melee weapon attacks.
However :) ...
P.S. Natural weapons appears to be a term used to refer to melee weapon attacks made with built in "weapons" that may not considered weapons (as per the rules in unarmed strike).
The only use of the term "natural weapons" I can find in the PHB is in the Alter Self spell.
"Natural Weapons. You grow claws, fangs, spines, horns, or a different natural weapon of your choice. Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, as appropriate to the natural weapon you chose, and you are proficient with your unarmed strikes. Finally, the natural weapon is magic and you have a +1 bonus to the attack and damage rolls you make using it."
Unfortunately the monster manual muddies the waters ... this is the only reference to natural weapon in the MM and it appears to use a loose definition of "weapon" by including it in quotation marks rather than defining a weapon as a manufactured item as is done in the PHB.
"MELEE AND RANGED ATTACKS The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike."
The DMG also contains a single reference to natural weapons
"Some monsters use natural weapons, such as claws or tail spikes. Others wield manufactured weapons."
Ultimately, it is up to the DM to decide whether "natural weapons" are considered weapons in the context of the rest of the rules like the paladin ability to smite with a weapon. The intent in the SAC appears to be to limit smite and similar abilities to "manufactured weapons" as defined in the PHB and DMG but it doesn't explicitly state that.
This thread has gotten a bit off topic (topic being number of spells you can cast a turn). There is already a thread about whether making a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike is a weapon attack which we are all already saying these same things.
If you have extra actions to use from any feature, unless it says you can only use the action for specific things (only for attack, or only dash, for example) you can cast a spell with it. There is no general limit on how many spells you can cast per turn.
Specifically, if you cast a bonus action spell, that now limits your other casting to a 1A cantrip only. Jeremy has clarified it a few times, you cannot use Action Surge to cast an additional spell if you have cast a BA spell - not even a reaction spell on or actual turn but a reaction off-turn in the same round is fine. Otherwise cast as many 1A spells as you can.
The only error is with Haste. The spell specifies one weapon attack only, dash, disengage, hide, or use object. You can't use cast-a-spell action, and an attack would need to be a weapon attack not a spell attack. Bladesinger allows you to use a cantrip as an attack action but that is not a weapon attack so can't be used as your haste action.
Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, explicitly so. And the natural weapons of races like the tabaxi are unarmed strikes, again explicitly so.
PHB says
This allows for a [one] cantrip with a casting time of an action. Xanathar's guide changed the wording a bit and says
So if you play with Xanathar's guide, you're free to cast a bonus action spell on your turn and also cast as many cantrips with a casting time of an action as your action economy allows.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This is one of those this I think they should have brought with then from 3.5. the manufacturered and natural weapon difference officially. That way there's still the 2 types of attacks: spell and weapon. And unarmed strikes would fall under natural, so when they want to exclude unarmed strikes from something, like sneak attack and smite, all they would need to do was add in the manufactured part of a weapon attack.
It's super muddy because PC races can have "natural weapons" given to them which is currently stated as a unarmed strike making then non-weapons (a flavor fail IMO).
So then, if a paladin is transformed into a beast, they make a melee weapon attack with the beast's natural weapon, does that mean they can use smite?
Unarmed strikes are non weapon that make weapon attacks.
Natural weapon features races have are unarmed strikes.
Monster and beasts you fight have natural weapons, but are considered weapons per one of the sage advice.
So a Tabaxi PC claw attack in considered a non weapon. An NPC Tabaxi claw attack is considered a weapon.
I find this odd.
There isn't a single monster that makes a non-weapon, non-spell melee attack. I challenge you to find 1.
Yeah, the wording here is nice and clear, I wish the rules were always like this. Doesn't change anything about unarmed strikes being melee weapon attacks though.
Correct. Monsters usually use natural weapons which are generally not unarmed strikes. Playable races that get natural weapons can specifically use them for unarmed strikes, but they are also natural weapons (which are weapons).
I think this even addresses your later posts.
No. Attacks by PC or NPC Tabaxi using their claws are BOTH considered melee weapon attacks and NEITHER are considered attacks with a weapon - it doesn't matter whether it is a PC or NPC.
Here is the text from the PHB on unarmed strikes.
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons)."
An unarmed strike is still a melee weapon attack BUT it is not considered an attack with a weapon. It doesn't matter whether it is a PC or NPC that is making the attack.
The sage advice compendium clarified the ruling on smiting and unarmed strikes or if you like melee weapon attacks that do not use a weapon.
"[NEW] Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike?
No. Divine Smite isn’t intended to work with unarmed strikes. Divine Smite does work with a melee weapon attack, and an unarmed strike can be used to make such an attack. But the text of Divine Smite also refers to the “weapon’s damage,” and an unarmed strike isn’t a weapon. If a DM decides to override this rule, no imbalance is created. Tying Divine Smite to weapons was a thematic choice on our part—paladins being traditionally associated with weapons. It was not a game balance choice."
Here is the text from divine smite:
"Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage."
So the issue with smite and unarmed strikes is not that unarmed strikes aren't melee weapon attacks - they ARE - but unarmed strikes are NOT attacks with a weapon.
In the monster manual, all the attacks are categorized as melee or ranged, weapon or spell attacks - however, many would not be categorized as attacks with a weapon unless a weapon is listed. If the MM says bite or claw - then it is a melee weapon attack but NOT an attack with a weapon. If the MM stat block says melee weapon attack long sword then that is a melee weapon attack WITH a weapon.
From PHB p146
"WEAPONS
Your class grants proficiency in certain weapons, reflecting both the class's focus and the tools you are most likely to use. Whether you favor a longsword or a longbow, your weapon and your ability to wield it effectively can mean the difference between life and death white adventuring. The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess. Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance."
The rules cover what are considered weapons in 5e. Bites, claws, and unarmed strikes aren't weapons though they do make melee weapon attacks.
However :) ...
P.S. Natural weapons appears to be a term used to refer to melee weapon attacks made with built in "weapons" that may not considered weapons (as per the rules in unarmed strike).
The only use of the term "natural weapons" I can find in the PHB is in the Alter Self spell.
"Natural Weapons. You grow claws, fangs, spines, horns, or a different natural weapon of your choice. Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, as appropriate to the natural weapon you chose, and you are proficient with your unarmed strikes. Finally, the natural weapon is magic and you have a +1 bonus to the attack and damage rolls you make using it."
Unfortunately the monster manual muddies the waters ... this is the only reference to natural weapon in the MM and it appears to use a loose definition of "weapon" by including it in quotation marks rather than defining a weapon as a manufactured item as is done in the PHB.
"MELEE AND RANGED ATTACKS
The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike."
The DMG also contains a single reference to natural weapons
"Some monsters use natural weapons, such as claws or tail spikes. Others wield manufactured weapons."
Ultimately, it is up to the DM to decide whether "natural weapons" are considered weapons in the context of the rest of the rules like the paladin ability to smite with a weapon. The intent in the SAC appears to be to limit smite and similar abilities to "manufactured weapons" as defined in the PHB and DMG but it doesn't explicitly state that.
This thread has gotten a bit off topic (topic being number of spells you can cast a turn). There is already a thread about whether making a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike is a weapon attack which we are all already saying these same things.
If you have extra actions to use from any feature, unless it says you can only use the action for specific things (only for attack, or only dash, for example) you can cast a spell with it. There is no general limit on how many spells you can cast per turn.
Specifically, if you cast a bonus action spell, that now limits your other casting to a 1A cantrip only. Jeremy has clarified it a few times, you cannot use Action Surge to cast an additional spell if you have cast a BA spell - not even a reaction spell on or actual turn but a reaction off-turn in the same round is fine. Otherwise cast as many 1A spells as you can.
The only error is with Haste. The spell specifies one weapon attack only, dash, disengage, hide, or use object. You can't use cast-a-spell action, and an attack would need to be a weapon attack not a spell attack. Bladesinger allows you to use a cantrip as an attack action but that is not a weapon attack so can't be used as your haste action.