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.
(As far as I'm aware this is the most up-to-date wording with all errattas)
What I get from this is that a normal character can cast 2 spells. 1 bonus action (any spell level) and 1 action spell (has to be a cantrip) in any order
If I were to use my action to cast any level spell (non cantrip) you cannot cast a bonus action spell because of the line: You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
But if you have action surge from the fighter, you can cast another spell of any level so long as it takes 1 action.
Now let's say, I cast a cantrip, use action surge to cast another cantrip, an I able to cast a bonus action spell? That same line to me days no. Mainly because you've casted more than A cantrip this turn.
Now let's take an extreme case, a level 6+ bladesinger with they're new multi attack feature which states:
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
Let's have the bladesinger have haste and access to action surge.
That means they are able to take the attack action 3 times. And for each of those actions they are about to replace a weapon attack with a cantrip, meaning they can cast 3 cantrips in a turn. As far as I'm aware of the rules, this is the only way to get more than 2 spells in a turn per the above wording.
You can use action surge to cast a second cantrip in addition to a bonus action spell. The "a" is not meant to signify an amount as to generally refer to cantrips. The singular is used only to not suggest multiple cantrips can be cast with a single action.
Bladesinger gets a little tricker, and it is still new, so there aren't many (if any) official rulings on it. I would argue that since haste says it's action can only be used for 1 weapon attack, that means you can't cast a spell even with bladesinger's extra attack.
One could also argue (though I wouldn't) that casting a spell as part of bladesinger's extra attack prevents bonus action spells (as the cantrip was not cast with your action, but again, I wouldn't rule this way, but also have a solid argument to the contrary).
And if we go off that reasoning though an unarmed Monk with haste cannot use the attack action from haste to make an unarmed attack because unarmed attacks aren't weapons.
Here is what the attack action says from the PHB/basic rules:
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
Edit: that last part there in the attack action is why I think they added that clause in the spell haste, do that a fighter with haste doesn't get 6-8 attacks without action surge.
It doesn't clearly say that you can cast a bonus action spell and 2 normal action works spells in a turn. Just that the limitation of cantrip applys when you cast your 2nd spell. That limitation isn't there if you used something like action surge to get a second action to cast another spell that way
And if we go off that reasoning though an unarmed Monk with haste cannot use the attack action from haste to make an unarmed attack because unarmed attacks aren't weapons.
An unarmed strike is a weapon attack, so it 100% fits within my reasoning. "One weapon attack only" can be one unarmed strike (as it is a weapon attack).
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
Edit: that last part there in the attack action is why I think they added that clause in the spell haste, do that a fighter with haste doesn't get 6-8 attacks without action surge.
Probably, but doesn't change the fact that a cantrip is not "one weapon attack only."
It doesn't clearly say that you can cast a bonus action spell and 2 normal action works spells in a turn. Just that the limitation of cantrip applys when you cast your 2nd spell. That limitation isn't there if you used something like action surge to get a second action to cast another spell that way
Yeah, I can't find any official ruling confirming or denying that you can cast a bonus action spell and action surge for 2 cantrips. Literally every one just assumed that is the case (except the ones getting action surge spellcasting or bonus action spells wrong), and is never corrected (by a rules authority or otherwise). As far as I can tell you are the first to ask whether "a cantrip with [an] action" means "literally only 1 cantrip regardless of how many actions you have."
This is under melee attacks (under making an attack section of the PHB/basic rules):
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). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
This is also why the Monk's martial arts are worded the way they are. It doesn't give finesse, but acts the same way. Unarmed strikes are not weapon attacks, but they are melee attacks. They cannot trigger sneak attacks and the like.
Edit: I think they might need to erratta the haste spell to say "the attack action cannot benefit from an extra attack feature" which would imply your interpretation of the haste stacking with bladesinger. If not it's poorly worded as is anyways, because RAW a monk cannot use it to make an unarmed attack with it... (They still can with monk weapons)
Edit 2; here is an argument. Cantrips like booming blade and green flame blade make a weapon attack as part of the spell (which is why I assume they changed how bladesinger work).
So assuming that you use the attack action from haste, then replace the attack with booking blade cantrip, you are still making a weapon attack. All that is in line with the current wording of the spell and extra attack feature of bladesinger.
This is under melee attacks (under making an attack section of the PHB/basic rules):
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). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
This is also why the Monk's martial arts are worded the way they are. It doesn't give finesse, but acts the same way. Unarmed strikes are not weapon attacks, but they are melee attacks. They cannot trigger sneak attacks and the like.
The rule you quoted is infact the rule that says unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. No they are not weapons, but that doesn't mean they aren't weapon attacks (because WotC wanted to make the terminology as f***ing confusing as possible). The alternative to weapon attack is spell attack, it must be one or the other.
Edit: I think they might need to erratta the haste spell to say "the attack action cannot benefit from an extra attack feature" which would imply your interpretation of the haste stacking with bladesinger. If not it's poorly worded as is anyways, because RAW a monk cannot use it to make an unarmed attack with it... (They still can with monk weapons)
Maybe. That would be clearer.
Edit 2; here is an argument. Cantrips like booming blade and green flame blade make a weapon attack as part of the spell (which is why I assume they changed how bladesinger work).
So assuming that you use the attack action from haste, then replace the attack with booking blade cantrip, you are still making a weapon attack. All that is in line with the current wording of the spell and extra attack feature of bladesinger.
Those definitely complicate my argument. Personally, I would rule no spells at all until I see otherwise from official (or semi official) source, but if there is an exception it would be those 2 cantrips.
The rule I quote clearly states that they are not weapons.
It say "instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can make an unarmed attack:" Which clearly says that an unarmed strike is a melee attack. Not a melee weapon attack.
It then says: "A pinch, kick, headbutt, or similar attack (none of which count as a weapon)" which cannot be more clear. Not counted as a weapon.
The rule I quote clearly states that they are not weapons.
It say "instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can make an unarmed attack:" Which clearly says that an unarmed strike is a melee attack. Not a melee weapon attack.
It then says: "A pinch, kick, headbutt, or similar attack (none of which count as a weapon)" which cannot be more clear. Not counted as a weapon.
You're right that they aren't weapons. You're wrong that they aren't melee weapon attacks. A melee weapon attack is not the same thing as a melee attack with a weapon, because D&D's terminology is sometimes very bad. Indeed, the very sentence you're quoting says this: you're still making a melee weapon attack, but instead of using a weapon, you're making an unarmed strike.
Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons?
Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks, and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack.
The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.
What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon?
It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon.
Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” (with a hyphen) if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.
It say "instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can make an unarmed attack:" Which clearly says that an unarmed strike is a melee attack.
Lets rearrange the sentence then "instead of using a weapon, you can make an unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack." Same sentence, same meaning, different arrangement.
They are still melee attacks, not melee weapon attacks. The rules are under the making an attack, melee attack.
As I already said, the attack has to be a weapon attack or a spell attack, there is no such thing as an attack that is not one or the other. (Melee or ranged) and (weapon or spell). Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks just like the sentence you quoted that I bolded says. And Ophidimancer provided multiple SAC quotes confirming that in no uncertain terms.
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.
So you can attack with a weapon for a melee weapon attack. You can attack with a spell like shocking grasp which states is a melee spell attack.
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.
And by the way, this item does proc on melee spell attacks that use weapon attacks like Booming Blade.
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.
Yes with other books played get access to races with "natural weapons" with allows them to make unarmed strikes with those weapons (normally a d4 instead of the 1 damage). But I don't think this applies to bring polymorphed or wild shape attacks you get this the monster stat blocks.
But then it becomes a flavor fail IMO to call them natural weapons but not count as weapons (because unarmed strikes aren't weapons).
Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Cat’s Claws. Because of your claws, you have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.
It called it a natural weapon, which per what you quoted is considered a weapon. But it also says it's an unarmed strike, which isn't...
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)
Edit: so after finally looking at a monster stat block I see that the attack is listed like:
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.
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)
Creatures (ie, not player characters) make the types of attacks their statblocks say they do. For example the aarakocra statblock calls its talons a 'melee weapon attack' so that is what they are. Even creatures with an unarmed strike in their statblock (like the hobgoblin iron shadow) call it a 'melee weapon attack'
Unarmed strikes as described in the player handbook are only for player characters in their normal forms and in the basic understanding of the language are a rare kind of melee attack that isn't a weapon or spell attack also (they are simply "unarmed strikes"). A polymorphed or wild shaped PC however is making the types of attacks in the statblock of the creature they are at the moment, so they are not making "unarmed strikes" as described in the players handbook, and a PC race whose means of unarmed strikes are called "natural weapons" would probably fall under the "melee weapon attacks" category since their specific rule overrides the general unarmed strikes rule
Unfortunately they tried to simplify things, but through extremely poor word choice they made it ten times worse. Now the whole thing is as clear as mud. I try to keep it as simple as possible;
Melee weapon attack: Man made melee weapons and natural weapons such as claws and biting.
Melee attack: Attacking in melee range with something that is not classed as a weapon (such as an unarmed strike - they should have just left it called unarmed strike and it relates to kicks, punches, headbutts etc).
Ranged weapon attack: Man made missile weapons and natural weapons such as manticore or porcupine quills.
Melee Spell attack: An attack made using a spell within melee range. This might include touching the enemy with your hand such as Vampiric touch, or using a man made weapon for Booming Blade.
Ranged Spell attack: Attacking with a spell at range such as Eldritch blast or Ray of frost.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok the normal character will have:
1 bonus action
1 movement
1 action
Per the PHB chapter 10 casting a spell:
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.
(As far as I'm aware this is the most up-to-date wording with all errattas)
What I get from this is that a normal character can cast 2 spells. 1 bonus action (any spell level) and 1 action spell (has to be a cantrip) in any order
If I were to use my action to cast any level spell (non cantrip) you cannot cast a bonus action spell because of the line: You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
But if you have action surge from the fighter, you can cast another spell of any level so long as it takes 1 action.
Now let's say, I cast a cantrip, use action surge to cast another cantrip, an I able to cast a bonus action spell? That same line to me days no. Mainly because you've casted more than A cantrip this turn.
Now let's take an extreme case, a level 6+ bladesinger with they're new multi attack feature which states:
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.
Let's have the bladesinger have haste and access to action surge.
That means they are able to take the attack action 3 times. And for each of those actions they are about to replace a weapon attack with a cantrip, meaning they can cast 3 cantrips in a turn. As far as I'm aware of the rules, this is the only way to get more than 2 spells in a turn per the above wording.
Am I wrong about any of this.
Edit: fixed spelling errors
You can use action surge to cast a second cantrip in addition to a bonus action spell. The "a" is not meant to signify an amount as to generally refer to cantrips. The singular is used only to not suggest multiple cantrips can be cast with a single action.
Bladesinger gets a little tricker, and it is still new, so there aren't many (if any) official rulings on it. I would argue that since haste says it's action can only be used for 1 weapon attack, that means you can't cast a spell even with bladesinger's extra attack.
One could also argue (though I wouldn't) that casting a spell as part of bladesinger's extra attack prevents bonus action spells (as the cantrip was not cast with your action, but again, I wouldn't rule this way, but also have a solid argument to the contrary).
And if we go off that reasoning though an unarmed Monk with haste cannot use the attack action from haste to make an unarmed attack because unarmed attacks aren't weapons.
Here is what the attack action says from the PHB/basic rules:
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
Edit: that last part there in the attack action is why I think they added that clause in the spell haste, do that a fighter with haste doesn't get 6-8 attacks without action surge.
Edit 2: even looking at this:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#SA159
It doesn't clearly say that you can cast a bonus action spell and 2 normal action works spells in a turn. Just that the limitation of cantrip applys when you cast your 2nd spell. That limitation isn't there if you used something like action surge to get a second action to cast another spell that way
An unarmed strike is a weapon attack, so it 100% fits within my reasoning. "One weapon attack only" can be one unarmed strike (as it is a weapon attack).
Probably, but doesn't change the fact that a cantrip is not "one weapon attack only."
Yeah, I can't find any official ruling confirming or denying that you can cast a bonus action spell and action surge for 2 cantrips. Literally every one just assumed that is the case (except the ones getting action surge spellcasting or bonus action spells wrong), and is never corrected (by a rules authority or otherwise). As far as I can tell you are the first to ask whether "a cantrip with [an] action" means "literally only 1 cantrip regardless of how many actions you have."
This is under melee attacks (under making an attack section of the PHB/basic rules):
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). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
This is also why the Monk's martial arts are worded the way they are. It doesn't give finesse, but acts the same way. Unarmed strikes are not weapon attacks, but they are melee attacks. They cannot trigger sneak attacks and the like.
Edit: I think they might need to erratta the haste spell to say "the attack action cannot benefit from an extra attack feature" which would imply your interpretation of the haste stacking with bladesinger. If not it's poorly worded as is anyways, because RAW a monk cannot use it to make an unarmed attack with it... (They still can with monk weapons)
Edit 2; here is an argument. Cantrips like booming blade and green flame blade make a weapon attack as part of the spell (which is why I assume they changed how bladesinger work).
So assuming that you use the attack action from haste, then replace the attack with booking blade cantrip, you are still making a weapon attack. All that is in line with the current wording of the spell and extra attack feature of bladesinger.
The rule you quoted is infact the rule that says unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. No they are not weapons, but that doesn't mean they aren't weapon attacks (because WotC wanted to make the terminology as f***ing confusing as possible). The alternative to weapon attack is spell attack, it must be one or the other.
Maybe. That would be clearer.
Those definitely complicate my argument. Personally, I would rule no spells at all until I see otherwise from official (or semi official) source, but if there is an exception it would be those 2 cantrips.
The rule I quote clearly states that they are not weapons.
It say "instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can make an unarmed attack:" Which clearly says that an unarmed strike is a melee attack. Not a melee weapon attack.
It then says: "A pinch, kick, headbutt, or similar attack (none of which count as a weapon)" which cannot be more clear. Not counted as a weapon.
You're right that they aren't weapons. You're wrong that they aren't melee weapon attacks. A melee weapon attack is not the same thing as a melee attack with a weapon, because D&D's terminology is sometimes very bad. Indeed, the very sentence you're quoting says this: you're still making a melee weapon attack, but instead of using a weapon, you're making an unarmed strike.
They are still melee attacks, not melee weapon attacks. The rules are under the making an attack, melee attack.
From the Sage Advice Compendium:
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
That is incorrect. They are melee weapon attacks.
Lets rearrange the sentence then "instead of using a weapon, you can make an unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack." Same sentence, same meaning, different arrangement.
As I already said, the attack has to be a weapon attack or a spell attack, there is no such thing as an attack that is not one or the other. (Melee or ranged) and (weapon or spell). Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks just like the sentence you quoted that I bolded says. And Ophidimancer provided multiple SAC quotes confirming that in no uncertain terms.
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.
So you can attack with a weapon for a melee weapon attack. You can attack with a spell like shocking grasp which states is a melee spell attack.
But we also got a new magic item in TCoE called Eldritch Claw Tattoo
Which had this on it's item description:
"Eldritch Maul.
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.
And by the way, this item does proc on melee spell attacks that use weapon attacks like Booming Blade.
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.
Yes with other books played get access to races with "natural weapons" with allows them to make unarmed strikes with those weapons (normally a d4 instead of the 1 damage). But I don't think this applies to bring polymorphed or wild shape attacks you get this the monster stat blocks.
But then it becomes a flavor fail IMO to call them natural weapons but not count as weapons (because unarmed strikes aren't weapons).
Sage Advice covers that as well:
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
To quote the Tabaxi claw trait:
Cat’s Claws. Because of your claws, you have a climbing speed of 20 feet. In addition, your claws are natural weapons, which you can use to make unarmed strikes. If you hit with them, you deal slashing damage equal to 1d4 + your Strength modifier, instead of the bludgeoning damage normal for an unarmed strike.
It called it a natural weapon, which per what you quoted is considered a weapon. But it also says it's an unarmed strike, which isn't...
*shrug* I feel like this is a niche case that perhaps wasn't written so well, but I dunno what to tell you.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
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)
Edit: so after finally looking at a monster stat block I see that the attack is listed like:
Bite: melee weapon attack, 5ft range, +x hit. XdY+A damage.
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.
Creatures (ie, not player characters) make the types of attacks their statblocks say they do. For example the aarakocra statblock calls its talons a 'melee weapon attack' so that is what they are. Even creatures with an unarmed strike in their statblock (like the hobgoblin iron shadow) call it a 'melee weapon attack'
Unarmed strikes as described in the player handbook are only for player characters in their normal forms and in the basic understanding of the language are a rare kind of melee attack that isn't a weapon or spell attack also (they are simply "unarmed strikes"). A polymorphed or wild shaped PC however is making the types of attacks in the statblock of the creature they are at the moment, so they are not making "unarmed strikes" as described in the players handbook, and a PC race whose means of unarmed strikes are called "natural weapons" would probably fall under the "melee weapon attacks" category since their specific rule overrides the general unarmed strikes rule
Unfortunately they tried to simplify things, but through extremely poor word choice they made it ten times worse. Now the whole thing is as clear as mud. I try to keep it as simple as possible;
Melee weapon attack: Man made melee weapons and natural weapons such as claws and biting.
Melee attack: Attacking in melee range with something that is not classed as a weapon (such as an unarmed strike - they should have just left it called unarmed strike and it relates to kicks, punches, headbutts etc).
Ranged weapon attack: Man made missile weapons and natural weapons such as manticore or porcupine quills.
Melee Spell attack: An attack made using a spell within melee range. This might include touching the enemy with your hand such as Vampiric touch, or using a man made weapon for Booming Blade.
Ranged Spell attack: Attacking with a spell at range such as Eldritch blast or Ray of frost.
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.