The weapons used had no bearing on the outcome except setting the damage.
I don't know how you can say that when two-handers are designed
to be more potent than one-handed weapons. Its factored in 2h are better (mostly on offense) since you are giving up the ability to have a shield or alternate weapon in the other hand. Also in the two handed category with the broad axe would be the Falchion, Zweihander, and Claymore. All of which have 1d12 damage code (or better) and all of them have a 19-20 threat range. With lethal weapons you almost have to go out of your way to not get a 19-20 threat range
. Being one handed but still offering a 1d12 is why
the longsword's crit range is so low.
The two I used are both threat 20 1d12 weapons. A Broad axe is threat 19-20 which would bias the results towards lethal. If you're concerned about weapon choice the fairest thing to do is to take a weapon that inflicts lethal and then apply the Rootwalker upgrade to it for the subdual weapon.
You took what is the second best of all knock out strategy weapons (second only to the blunted claymore)and compared it to one of the bottom 40% worst boss-killing lethal melee weapons and ask, "which of these stuns/kills a boss faster?"
Longswords are genius for mowing down unarmored mooks, but terrible for fighting special characters. I agree, lets be fair: pit sharp and blunt no-dachi against the target. You might also get interesting numbers with a sharp and dull dagger, arguably one of the most common 1-h weapons in history. The dagger being interesting because the sharp one will likely have to score 2 crits to finish the job
But if you just take the broad axe and plug it into the original situation, the broad axe kills before knockout 85% of the time compared with the long sword at 60%.
Death by critical is a core feature
of lethal damage. It what it offers instead of
death spiral by fatigue. The table of lethal damage melee weapons is well over half 19-20 with occasional spikes of 18-20. Trying to divoce that fact from all the weapons that do lethal damage is going to give the skewed results we're seeing: people so concerned that subdual will end the fight before you grind down a foe's vitality that they are ignoring the exact result you just described - that a lethal damage weapon chosen for the task at hand will outperform a similarly well chosen subdual weapon being used for that same task
I get what you're going for here but I think that adding in a strategy or a situation just clouds the comparison of damage types.
*shrug* Damage type doesn't exist in a vacuum. But I follow the desire to reduce variables.