D&D 5E Melee attacks/unarmed strikes?

[BookBarbarian]

Now that that is settled why can I make a melee attack with something that is not a melee weapon ( Unarmed strikes) ?

Because "Melee weapon attack" is more "Non-Ranged Non-Spell Attack." The terminology is confusing but I've found I've adapted to it.

Also why are PC's with natural attacks held back in the melee weapon attack category when monsters are not?(yeah yeah yeah monsters are not PCs..but still why 2 sets of rules)

The two sets of rules allow DMs to spit out Monsters faster than if they had to build them with PC rules in mind. It favors taking more off the plate of the DM over consistency for consistency's sake.

For those that don't know PCs with natural attacks those attacks are concidered as unarmed attacks.

This seems to me to not make sense. I'm of the opinion that if I'm doing damage with my fists, feet, claws or, bite I'm attacking with melee attacks.

You are making melee attacks. That is 100% by the book.

Why does the distinction between melee weapons and unarmed strike exist? I can make melee weapon attacks and kill with both why is one concidered a weapon and the other not?

So that you cannot cast Magic Weapon on a Player Character's body parts.

(on a side note: Why does the Order of the Lycan blood rite not continue on a monk/bloodhunter when the transformation ends)

I can only guess at the mind of Matt Mercer on this one, but probably for balance.

A Lycan in hybrid form has a big advantage over TWF Bloodhunters in that it only has to cast a single Blood rite to affect its Attacks and Bonus Attack.

Carrying that over to a Monks Martial Arts/Furry of blows would be double the Rite damage compared to a non monk multiclassed Bloodhunter.

It's likely Mercer thought that was bad.