Elemental Forums
It's, with the apostrophe, is "it is". Its, without the apostrophe, is possessive. Lose the apostrophe for Burning Dagger.
Have all the grammatical and spelling errors been fixed, or will that happen before the full release?
If you are going to post a grammar fix at least post a full grammar fix 
This dagger is popular in battle and is also used by field surgeons, who use its blade to cauterize wounds.
Because being popular in battle and being used by field surgeons are not mutually exclusive.
+5 grammar nazi xp. I can feel myself leveling up. I will put the points into my obnoxiousness stat.
Rolling against my new obnoxiousness stat - success - I can now point out that open flame is a terrible thing to use to cauterize wounds. You'll want to use a heated dagger, not a burning dagger. Stupid field medics.
This dagger is popular in battle and by field surgeons, who use its blade to cauterize wounds.
I thought this sounds a little better 
It can't be "popular by" but it can be "popular with":
This dagger is popular in battle and with field surgeons, who use its blade to cauterize wounds.
But even this does not work because the first clause does not have parallel structure - actually the problem may even be more complicated than that but I already have enough grammar nazi xp to level up again and I'd like to keep from leveling up beyond the proper bounds of the scenario so I'll leave it at that.
If you want to use popular for both without restructuring the entire sentence you'd need to either use the people in the battle in the sentence or remove field surgeons from the sentence:
This dagger is popular with warriors and also with field surgeons, who use its blade to cauterize wounds.
Or:
This dagger is popular in battle as well as in field medicine, as its blade can be used to cauterize wounds.
And since I come from the wordsmithing school of "less is more", I'll offer:
This dagger is popular with warriors and field surgeons, who use its blade to cauterize wounds.
I figured someone would try to edit that out. 
The reason I left "also with" is to separate out field surgeons from warriors, so that "who" includes only field surgeons and not both field surgeons and warriors. Otherwise you have to say "the latter of which" which is going the opposite direction of less is more.
However, if you want to leave it as warriors and field surgeons both cauterizing wounds, which is fine, what you have there works.
I still say a dagger that is actually burning is a poor choice for cauterization compared to just using it to heat another blade.
There are a large number of plural/possessive confusions in game text, not sure if they've all been reported. The most frequent one I have seen is improvements, spells or other improvements to a city; in every single case, the text from the improvements/spell/etc. incorrectly uses the plural of city ("cities") when they affect the city and should be possessive ("city's").
A property of something, such as the food output of a city, it is possessive (id est: "a city's food output" -- food output from a city). Plural ("cities") is not for the property of anything, merely a group of more than one thing. There may be, on occasion, a need for both or a word properly ends in an 's' even for a singular item; in most cases of a word ending in s, possessive is implemented by simply adding an apostrophe without the customary extra 's,' since that would be awkward ("Improves all cities' food output").
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.