New PF DM

[Chronologist]

Pre-made modules are fine, just spend an hour or two going over it, figuring out what all the characters' motivations are, how they might react in strange circumstances etc. and you'll be fine. Me, I go by three main rules:

1) Use plenty of description with the environment, the people, the monsters, everything. The game flows better for the players, and in my experience for the DM, when he's describing things in intimate detail. It also buys you time to think.

2) When in doubt, use the rule of 3. A threatening monster should, generally, be able to take out a player character in three undefended hits. In return, they should be able to take about three hits before they're knocked out as well. Specifically tough monsters should take 5 or 6, boss monsters should take 12, and they both should deal a little bit more damage, and hit more than one player per action. This is useful when you've forgotten the stat block for the monster.

3) Favor the monsters slightly for raw combat advantage, you can expect the players will use smart tactics and dirty tricks in every fight. I usually give the monsters an extra +2 bonus to saves, AC, attack rolls, and skill checks to compensate for this, especially since monster tactics take some getting used to in Pathfinder. Solo monster types get a +3 or +4, boss types get a +5 bonus.

In the end, it's all about the speed of play, and the quality of the adventure. I'm sure you'll do fine.

 

[Lwaxy]

The above mentioned adventure series is not exactly the best and has a lot of logical errors/oversights. It needs quite some adaptions if your players tend to reason out what is happening.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I've been playing this game for 34 years, and that is the first time anybody has suggested a "rule of three".

Do no such thing. Use the CR system as intended

 

[Chronologist]

I'm just giving advice, Steel_Wind. It works for me, and it helped when I was a new DM, I figured that it might help molepunch too.

CR is the best way to go, I agree, but in my experience if your Wizard dies in a single hit from an enemy, the game stops being fun. I've seen a lot of new players give up on D&D because a level 1 Orc with a Greatsword killed their level 3 Fighter in a single strike.

Rather than fudge the dice results, I find it better to moderate enemy damage and hit points. If that makes the game less "authentic", then so be it. Not every players want to play Tomb of Horrors, some want to have an adventure where they have some chance of survival.

I played in a pathfinder adventure for a year, and my character was knocked into the negatives within the first 3 round of combat every single encounter. I had better than average hit points, saves, and armor class and the DM used appropriate challenge rating monsters, and rolled in front of the players. Let me tell you, not being able to play 50% of the time or more is not fun. It's not challenging or exiting if you're always bleeding to death.

Having fun is the reason we play, right?