So yes I know according to the rules, an unarmed attack is considered a melee weapon attack even though they themselves are not weapons.
Here is the quoted text from making an attack melee attack:
Melee Attacks
Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve making a melee attack.
Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
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.
That 3rd paragraph is what's important for this discussion. I know the English (wording) is clear, but I'll rephrase it:
"Instead of a using a weapon, you can use an unarmed attack to make a melee weapon attack."
"Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. And they don't work with Divine Smite, which requires a weapon."
Here is the text for
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. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.
As you can see for yourself Divine smite just needs a melee weapon attack, which according to the rules and JC himself an unmarked strike is. Also according to JC, that doesn't work with smite though.
To further increase my confusion, because I believe that an unarmed strike should count as a melee attack and not a melee weapon attack which the are 3 types of (weapon, unarmed/natural weapons, and spell).
So if we look back at the first paragraph of making an attack, melee attacks it says "A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part."
The language there says a claw or horn is a melee attack, not a melee weapon attack. Nor an unarmed attack either.
So if we look at some of the races we have access to play, like the Minotaur who gets a natural weapon of their horns it basically says: you may use this natural weapon as an unmarked strike to deal 1d4 damage instead of the 1 you normally get.
And if you look at one of the new magic tattoo items for TCoE the: Eldritch Claw Tattoo it has this to say:
"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 ..."
So if according to the rules as is, all melee attacks you take as part of the attack action as a part are considered a melee weapon attack (melee spell attacks are part of the casting a spell action like shocking grasp) why then did they need to use that wording in the item?
Why are horn attacks (or other natural weapons) that player makes considered melee weapon attacks when a monsters natural weapons as far as I'm aware aren't?
Why is it that according to JC that an unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack but cannot be used for smite even though smite requires a melee weapon attack? (Unless the tweet I'm referencing is for the lvl 11 paladin feature improved Divine smite which does say when you hit with a weapon)
Why then is the section called melee attacks and not weapon melee attacks in the making an attack section inside the PHB if all melee attacks a player can make in the attack action (weapon or unarmed strike) are meme weapon attacks?
I've seen interpretations that it's the "in addition to the weapon's damage" line that excludes it from being used with unarmed strikes. Meaning that there needs to be "weapon damage".
Personally though, I don't like that interpretation and at my table you can absolutely use Divine Smite with a fist.
IMO that makes more apparent that an unarmed strike should not be considered a melee weapon attack, because it didn't have weapon damamge, because they aren't a weapon. Even if you are a monk with scaling damage dice, or take the new unarmed fighting style.
To me, they should just remove 1 word from the 3rd paragraph. That word being "weapon" from "melee weapon attack." It would clear up so many issues.
For instance (I don't agree with this either) but you cannot use unarmed strikes to get sneak attack, because that requires either a ranged or finesse weapon.
(I played the Brawler class with alt class feature of snakebite striker for over 2 years in a Pathfinders campaign. One of my favorite characters I've ever made. Brawler being a monk/fighter hybrid. The alt class feature gave sneak attack.)
The phrase "melee weapon attack" is the equivalent to the phrase "melee spell attack". All melee attacks are either melee weapon attacks or melee spell attacks. There are no other kinds of melee attacks. The only remaining attack types are ranged weapon attacks and ranged spell attacks.
When they specifically want to exclude things like unarmed strikes or natural weapons they tend to use the phrase "an attack with a melee weapon", which means any attack (including throwing) using an object on the official list of melee weapons.
So what type of melee attack does a monster do? For instance a wolf with a bite attack. In the quoted section it says "A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part." So judging by that alone a bite attack a wolf does is a melee attack, not a melee weapon attack.
So there are more than the 2 types of melee attacks you started.
Edit: Nor is a bite an unarmef strike. "unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow." Therefore doesn't fall under the "unarmed strike being a melee weapon attack" clause.
In fact in the 3 paragraphs dealing with melee attacks, only once does it state any type of melee attack. The "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike." Everywhere else the in the 3 paragraphs it just called them melee attacks period. Yes yes, big umbrella covers all. But other books and resources like in the item description for Eldritch Claw Tattoo as I mentioned only says "when you make an melee attack with a weapon or unarmef strike" if as you say the are only 2 types of melee attacks, spell and weapon, why did they use this phrasing then? And that's from the newest book TCoE.
So what type of melee attack does a monster do? For instance a wolf with a bite attack. In the quoted section it says "A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part." So judging by that alone a bite attack a wolf does is a melee attack, not a melee weapon attack.
So there are more than the 2 types of melee attacks you started.
Edit: Nor is a bite an unarmef strike. "unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow." Therefore doesn't fall under the "unarmed strike being a melee weapon attack" clause.
In fact in the 3 paragraphs dealing with melee attacks, only once does it state any type of melee attack. The "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike." Everywhere else the in the 3 paragraphs it just called them melee attacks period. Yes yes, big umbrella covers all. But other books and resources like in the item description for Eldritch Claw Tattoo as I mentioned only says "when you make an melee attack with a weapon or unarmef strike" if as you say the are only 2 types of melee attacks, spell and weapon, why did they use this phrasing then? And that's from the newest book TCoE.
A wolf makes a melee weapon attack with its bite, because that's how it's statblock classifies it. Unarmed Strikes, as described as being distinct from melee weapon attacks, are only for PCs (unless overridden by a racial ability, like the tabaxi's cats claws, or the transformation effects of wild shape/polymorph (which replaces your stats with the statblock of the creature)
So what type of melee attack does a monster do? For instance a wolf with a bite attack. In the quoted section it says "A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part." So judging by that alone a bite attack a wolf does is a melee attack, not a melee weapon attack.
So there are more than the 2 types of melee attacks you started.
Edit: Nor is a bite an unarmef strike. "unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow." Therefore doesn't fall under the "unarmed strike being a melee weapon attack" clause.
In fact in the 3 paragraphs dealing with melee attacks, only once does it state any type of melee attack. The "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike." Everywhere else the in the 3 paragraphs it just called them melee attacks period. Yes yes, big umbrella covers all. But other books and resources like in the item description for Eldritch Claw Tattoo as I mentioned only says "when you make an melee attack with a weapon or unarmef strike" if as you say the are only 2 types of melee attacks, spell and weapon, why did they use this phrasing then? And that's from the newest book TCoE.
Almost every melee range attack from a monster will be a melee weapon attack. Some very special monsters can make a melee spell attack (Lich). Likewise most of their ranged attacks will be ranged weapon attacks.
Unarmed strikes are a subset of melee weapon attacks, but they are not "an attack with a melee weapon".
I don't know why TCoE uses that exact wording, but the effect of that wording is reasonably clear: melee attacks with a weapon or unarmed strike are in, melee attacks with a natural weapon (horns etc) or an improvised weapon (a rock) are out. Throwing attacks with a melee weapon are out. All spell attacks and ranged attacks are out. Effect includes attacks of Opportunity or weapon attacks made as part of a spell (like Booming Blade).
A "weapon" is something you can be disarmed of. For example, a battlemaster fighter can get you to drop your sword or frying pan, but not your shield or horns or feet.
Punching, kicking, elbow striking, goring, clawing, scratching, etc are all "melee weapon attacks" but are not "attacks with a weapon."
It's not the greatest of phrasing but the rulebooks generally do use it consistenty, and deliberately.
Here on this sage advice article (serious of tweets) JC said that you can use natural weapons with smite and magic weapon at DMs discretion. And that this wouldn't break the game.
I don't know why TCoE uses that exact wording, but the effect of that wording is reasonably clear: melee attacks with a weapon or unarmed strike are in, melee attacks with a natural weapon (horns etc) or an improvised weapon (a rock) are out. Throwing attacks with a melee weapon are out. All spell attacks and ranged attacks are out. Effect includes attacks of Opportunity or weapon attacks made as part of a spell (like Booming Blade).
I don't know why TCoE uses that exact wording, but the effect of that wording is reasonably clear: melee attacks with a weapon or unarmed strike are in, melee attacks with a natural weapon (horns etc) or an improvised weapon (a rock) are out. Throwing attacks with a melee weapon are out. All spell attacks and ranged attacks are out. Effect includes attacks of Opportunity or weapon attacks made as part of a spell (like Booming Blade).
I don't know why TCoE uses that exact wording, but the effect of that wording is reasonably clear: melee attacks with a weapon or unarmed strike are in, melee attacks with a natural weapon (horns etc) or an improvised weapon (a rock) are out. Throwing attacks with a melee weapon are out. All spell attacks and ranged attacks are out. Effect includes attacks of Opportunity or weapon attacks made as part of a spell (like Booming Blade).
Pretty much this.
Natural Weapons still count as weapons, and all natural weapons available to PCs via race also include a line that those natural weapons can also be used to make unarmed strikes. That wording does not prohibit interaction between Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade and natural weapons at all.
May be a few years late to the party, but I do wish to point out that the Monk's 5th level ability "Stunning Strike" specifically states "[w]hen you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can... attempt a stunning strike." So Crawford's tweet would mean Stunning Strike can't be used with unarmed strikes.
There was an official ruling made in Sage Advice explaining why Divine Smite doesn't work on unarmed strike.
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.
To me, the OP seems to be misinterpreting the rule which is then causing a lot of confusion throughout the thread.
I'm not really sure how:
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).
was interpreted to mean:
"Instead of a using a weapon, you can use an unarmed attack to make a melee weapon attack."
In fact, it says exactly the opposite. It's saying that if you attack with a melee weapon (not thrown, but attacking within reach) then you are making a melee weapon attack. Or, instead of doing that you can choose to attack without a weapon, which would be considered to be an unarmed strike, NOT a melee weapon attack.
All melee attacks are either melee weapon attacks or melee spell attacks. There are no other kinds of melee attacks. The only remaining attack types are ranged weapon attacks and ranged spell attacks.
This is incorrect. The section with the heading "Melee Attacks" goes on to describe Melee Weapon Attacks, Melee Spell Attacks, Unarmed Strikes, Grappling and Shoving a Creature.
To me, the OP seems to be misinterpreting the rule which is then causing a lot of confusion throughout the thread.
I'm not really sure how:
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).
was interpreted to mean:
"Instead of a using a weapon, you can use an unarmed attack to make a melee weapon attack."
In fact, it says exactly the opposite. It's saying that if you attack with a melee weapon (not thrown, but attacking within reach) then you are making a melee weapon attack. Or, instead of doing that you can choose to attack without a weapon, which would be considered to be an unarmed strike, NOT a melee weapon attack.
No it does say exactly what he says it does. An unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack, it is however not an attack with a weapon. I know that some are a bit thrown by that difference but those are the rules.
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.
May be a few years late to the party, but I do wish to point out that the Monk's 5th level ability "Stunning Strike" specifically states "[w]hen you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can... attempt a stunning strike." So Crawford's tweet would mean Stunning Strike can't be used with unarmed strikes.
An unarmed strike is “a melee weapon attack,” it just isn’t “an attack with a melee weapon.” There’s a difference.
Ok, after rereading all of this several times I think I've changed my mind on this one and have come around to the general consensus. At first reading I was convinced that the rule was trying to say "In melee, instead of making a weapon attack or a spell attack, you can make an unarmed strike". Logically, this would make the most sense. In fact, if attacking without a weapon really does count as a "melee weapon attack" then all of the wording for this entire rule section should be completely overhauled for the next version of the game for obvious reasons.
And yet, after studying it for a bit, it does appear that that's what is meant in the rules as written.
The rules start off the entire section with the heading of "Making an Attack" with:
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
This implies that these are the only ways to use the Attack action in combat. It also implies that spells are not weapon attacks but they ARE (sometimes) attacks and these could be used in Melee or in Ranged combat.
Later on, there is a subheading called "Melee Attacks" which presumably expands upon all Melee options -- from above those are (only) "melee weapon attacks" and "melee spell attacks". Within this section it gets a bit confusing again when it differentiates some monster attacks:
A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part.
But there is no elaboration on that. So, it's up to the reader to piece it together that monster stat blocks often refer to monsters as having "natural armor" and therefore many of these examples such as "claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part" should be considered to be "natural weapons". Because these natural weapons are weapons it makes some sense that attacks with these natural weapons would be considered to be "melee weapon attacks", which is exactly what we see explicitly in many monster stat blocks.
Finally, we get to the bit about the unarmed strikes. But this is talked about two paragraphs later and seems to be categorized separately from using a weapon:
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).
Note that it does go out of its way to explicitly state that this does NOT count as using a weapon. However, if we are still sticking to how things were organized above then we are still assuming that the (only) Melee attack options are the "melee weapon attack" and the "melee spell attack" and therefore, this must be categorized as one of those. This still feels like a stretch to me, but I can see how the RAW can be interpreted that way given all of the context.
Interestingly, we then find out that these are NOT the only Melee attack options -- there are two sub-subsections (within the Melee Attacks subsection) which spell out two additional Melee options: "Grappling" and "Shoving a Creature":
you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple.
and
Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature
Notably, these actions are each given their own headings for their descriptions and are also both described as being "a special melee attack" as though these were clearly meant to be exceptions to the above categorizations of the rest of the Melee attack options. And yet, the unarmed strike received no such special treatment in its description.
Given these additional context clues, I will now agree with the consensus that the Unarmed Strike is a Melee attack that is categorized as a "melee weapon attack". The wording really is problematic but that does appear to be RAW after all.
Yeah there are too many instances and features that specifically differentiate between weapon and unarmed strikes for me to allow an unarmed strike to count as a weapon attack. For example, a monk can make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, but a fighter using the unarmed fighting style can not.
Yeah there are too many instances and features that specifically differentiate between weapon and unarmed strikes for me to allow an unarmed strike to count as a weapon attack. For example, a monk can make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, but a fighter using the unarmed fighting style can not.
That’s because the Monk has a special rule that allows them to make an Unarmed Strike as a bonus action, and the Unarmed Fighting Style includes no such special rules. An Unarmed Strike is still a melee weapon attack, it’s just not an attack with a weapon.
The real problem with this whole thing is that WotC used "weapon" to mean both "the physical thing that you stab a dude with" and also "the type of attack that is not magical"
(Then they also did the exact same thing with the word "attack", just to create extra confusion. And both balls of confusion are used in the exact same context. Grrr.)
If you could do a global search-replace changing "melee weapon attack" to "melee physical attack", it gets so much clearer.
In general, I find the 5e rules to be reasonably well-written, but those two decisions are just so, so, sloppy and confusing.
So yes I know according to the rules, an unarmed attack is considered a melee weapon attack even though they themselves are not weapons.
Here is the quoted text from making an attack melee attack:
Melee Attacks
Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve making a melee attack.
Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
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.
That 3rd paragraph is what's important for this discussion. I know the English (wording) is clear, but I'll rephrase it:
"Instead of a using a weapon, you can use an unarmed attack to make a melee weapon attack."
For those that know Jeremy Crawford has tweeted about unarmed attacks and the smite ability ( https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1088200198814232577?s=20 ). This tweet says:
"Unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks. And they don't work with Divine Smite, which requires a weapon."
Here is the text for
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. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.
As you can see for yourself Divine smite just needs a melee weapon attack, which according to the rules and JC himself an unmarked strike is. Also according to JC, that doesn't work with smite though.
To further increase my confusion, because I believe that an unarmed strike should count as a melee attack and not a melee weapon attack which the are 3 types of (weapon, unarmed/natural weapons, and spell).
So if we look back at the first paragraph of making an attack, melee attacks it says "A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part."
The language there says a claw or horn is a melee attack, not a melee weapon attack. Nor an unarmed attack either.
So if we look at some of the races we have access to play, like the Minotaur who gets a natural weapon of their horns it basically says: you may use this natural weapon as an unmarked strike to deal 1d4 damage instead of the 1 you normally get.
And if you look at one of the new magic tattoo items for TCoE the: Eldritch Claw Tattoo it has this to say:
"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 ..."
So if according to the rules as is, all melee attacks you take as part of the attack action as a part are considered a melee weapon attack (melee spell attacks are part of the casting a spell action like shocking grasp) why then did they need to use that wording in the item?
Why are horn attacks (or other natural weapons) that player makes considered melee weapon attacks when a monsters natural weapons as far as I'm aware aren't?
Why is it that according to JC that an unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack but cannot be used for smite even though smite requires a melee weapon attack? (Unless the tweet I'm referencing is for the lvl 11 paladin feature improved Divine smite which does say when you hit with a weapon)
Why then is the section called melee attacks and not weapon melee attacks in the making an attack section inside the PHB if all melee attacks a player can make in the attack action (weapon or unarmed strike) are meme weapon attacks?
Edit: fixed working and auto correct mistakes
I've seen interpretations that it's the "in addition to the weapon's damage" line that excludes it from being used with unarmed strikes. Meaning that there needs to be "weapon damage".
Personally though, I don't like that interpretation and at my table you can absolutely use Divine Smite with a fist.
IMO that makes more apparent that an unarmed strike should not be considered a melee weapon attack, because it didn't have weapon damamge, because they aren't a weapon. Even if you are a monk with scaling damage dice, or take the new unarmed fighting style.
To me, they should just remove 1 word from the 3rd paragraph. That word being "weapon" from "melee weapon attack." It would clear up so many issues.
For instance (I don't agree with this either) but you cannot use unarmed strikes to get sneak attack, because that requires either a ranged or finesse weapon.
(I played the Brawler class with alt class feature of snakebite striker for over 2 years in a Pathfinders campaign. One of my favorite characters I've ever made. Brawler being a monk/fighter hybrid. The alt class feature gave sneak attack.)
The phrase "melee weapon attack" is the equivalent to the phrase "melee spell attack". All melee attacks are either melee weapon attacks or melee spell attacks. There are no other kinds of melee attacks. The only remaining attack types are ranged weapon attacks and ranged spell attacks.
When they specifically want to exclude things like unarmed strikes or natural weapons they tend to use the phrase "an attack with a melee weapon", which means any attack (including throwing) using an object on the official list of melee weapons.
So what type of melee attack does a monster do? For instance a wolf with a bite attack. In the quoted section it says "A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part." So judging by that alone a bite attack a wolf does is a melee attack, not a melee weapon attack.
So there are more than the 2 types of melee attacks you started.
Edit: Nor is a bite an unarmef strike. "unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow." Therefore doesn't fall under the "unarmed strike being a melee weapon attack" clause.
In fact in the 3 paragraphs dealing with melee attacks, only once does it state any type of melee attack. The "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike." Everywhere else the in the 3 paragraphs it just called them melee attacks period. Yes yes, big umbrella covers all. But other books and resources like in the item description for Eldritch Claw Tattoo as I mentioned only says "when you make an melee attack with a weapon or unarmef strike" if as you say the are only 2 types of melee attacks, spell and weapon, why did they use this phrasing then? And that's from the newest book TCoE.
A wolf makes a melee weapon attack with its bite, because that's how it's statblock classifies it. Unarmed Strikes, as described as being distinct from melee weapon attacks, are only for PCs (unless overridden by a racial ability, like the tabaxi's cats claws, or the transformation effects of wild shape/polymorph (which replaces your stats with the statblock of the creature)
Almost every melee range attack from a monster will be a melee weapon attack. Some very special monsters can make a melee spell attack (Lich). Likewise most of their ranged attacks will be ranged weapon attacks.
Unarmed strikes are a subset of melee weapon attacks, but they are not "an attack with a melee weapon".
I don't know why TCoE uses that exact wording, but the effect of that wording is reasonably clear: melee attacks with a weapon or unarmed strike are in, melee attacks with a natural weapon (horns etc) or an improvised weapon (a rock) are out. Throwing attacks with a melee weapon are out. All spell attacks and ranged attacks are out. Effect includes attacks of Opportunity or weapon attacks made as part of a spell (like Booming Blade).
A "weapon" is something you can be disarmed of. For example, a battlemaster fighter can get you to drop your sword or frying pan, but not your shield or horns or feet.
Punching, kicking, elbow striking, goring, clawing, scratching, etc are all "melee weapon attacks" but are not "attacks with a weapon."
It's not the greatest of phrasing but the rulebooks generally do use it consistenty, and deliberately.
Here on this sage advice article (serious of tweets) JC said that you can use natural weapons with smite and magic weapon at DMs discretion. And that this wouldn't break the game.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2020/04/26/jeremy-craford-mentioned-the-natural-melee-weapon-language-of-the-minotaurs-horns-means-it-works-with-divine-smite-is-this-a-revision/
As always it's always up to the DM and this was mainly pertaining to a natural weapon a PC gets through a racial trait.
I found this tweet by JC: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1031663351309299712?s=20
Which he states there are 3 types of weapons: simple, martial, and natural.
Pretty much this.
Natural Weapons still count as weapons, and all natural weapons available to PCs via race also include a line that those natural weapons can also be used to make unarmed strikes. That wording does not prohibit interaction between Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade and natural weapons at all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
May be a few years late to the party, but I do wish to point out that the Monk's 5th level ability "Stunning Strike" specifically states "[w]hen you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can... attempt a stunning strike." So Crawford's tweet would mean Stunning Strike can't be used with unarmed strikes.
There was an official ruling made in Sage Advice explaining why Divine Smite doesn't work on unarmed strike.
To me, the OP seems to be misinterpreting the rule which is then causing a lot of confusion throughout the thread.
I'm not really sure how:
was interpreted to mean:
In fact, it says exactly the opposite. It's saying that if you attack with a melee weapon (not thrown, but attacking within reach) then you are making a melee weapon attack. Or, instead of doing that you can choose to attack without a weapon, which would be considered to be an unarmed strike, NOT a melee weapon attack.
Also, regarding:
This is incorrect. The section with the heading "Melee Attacks" goes on to describe Melee Weapon Attacks, Melee Spell Attacks, Unarmed Strikes, Grappling and Shoving a Creature.
No it does say exactly what he says it does. An unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack, it is however not an attack with a weapon. I know that some are a bit thrown by that difference but those are the rules.
If you need more confirmation of that then the Sage Advice Column spells it out clearly.
An unarmed strike is “a melee weapon attack,” it just isn’t “an attack with a melee weapon.” There’s a difference.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ok, after rereading all of this several times I think I've changed my mind on this one and have come around to the general consensus. At first reading I was convinced that the rule was trying to say "In melee, instead of making a weapon attack or a spell attack, you can make an unarmed strike". Logically, this would make the most sense. In fact, if attacking without a weapon really does count as a "melee weapon attack" then all of the wording for this entire rule section should be completely overhauled for the next version of the game for obvious reasons.
And yet, after studying it for a bit, it does appear that that's what is meant in the rules as written.
The rules start off the entire section with the heading of "Making an Attack" with:
This implies that these are the only ways to use the Attack action in combat. It also implies that spells are not weapon attacks but they ARE (sometimes) attacks and these could be used in Melee or in Ranged combat.
Later on, there is a subheading called "Melee Attacks" which presumably expands upon all Melee options -- from above those are (only) "melee weapon attacks" and "melee spell attacks". Within this section it gets a bit confusing again when it differentiates some monster attacks:
But there is no elaboration on that. So, it's up to the reader to piece it together that monster stat blocks often refer to monsters as having "natural armor" and therefore many of these examples such as "claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part" should be considered to be "natural weapons". Because these natural weapons are weapons it makes some sense that attacks with these natural weapons would be considered to be "melee weapon attacks", which is exactly what we see explicitly in many monster stat blocks.
Finally, we get to the bit about the unarmed strikes. But this is talked about two paragraphs later and seems to be categorized separately from using a weapon:
Note that it does go out of its way to explicitly state that this does NOT count as using a weapon. However, if we are still sticking to how things were organized above then we are still assuming that the (only) Melee attack options are the "melee weapon attack" and the "melee spell attack" and therefore, this must be categorized as one of those. This still feels like a stretch to me, but I can see how the RAW can be interpreted that way given all of the context.
Interestingly, we then find out that these are NOT the only Melee attack options -- there are two sub-subsections (within the Melee Attacks subsection) which spell out two additional Melee options: "Grappling" and "Shoving a Creature":
and
Notably, these actions are each given their own headings for their descriptions and are also both described as being "a special melee attack" as though these were clearly meant to be exceptions to the above categorizations of the rest of the Melee attack options. And yet, the unarmed strike received no such special treatment in its description.
Given these additional context clues, I will now agree with the consensus that the Unarmed Strike is a Melee attack that is categorized as a "melee weapon attack". The wording really is problematic but that does appear to be RAW after all.
Yeah there are too many instances and features that specifically differentiate between weapon and unarmed strikes for me to allow an unarmed strike to count as a weapon attack. For example, a monk can make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, but a fighter using the unarmed fighting style can not.
That’s because the Monk has a special rule that allows them to make an Unarmed Strike as a bonus action, and the Unarmed Fighting Style includes no such special rules. An Unarmed Strike is still a melee weapon attack, it’s just not an attack with a weapon.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The real problem with this whole thing is that WotC used "weapon" to mean both "the physical thing that you stab a dude with" and also "the type of attack that is not magical"
(Then they also did the exact same thing with the word "attack", just to create extra confusion. And both balls of confusion are used in the exact same context. Grrr.)
If you could do a global search-replace changing "melee weapon attack" to "melee physical attack", it gets so much clearer.
In general, I find the 5e rules to be reasonably well-written, but those two decisions are just so, so, sloppy and confusing.